AMIT KAl?OOR v. RAMESH CHANDER & Anr.

2.1. The inherent as well as the revisional jurisdiction should be exercised cautiously. If the jurisdiction u/s 482 of the Code in relation to quashing of an FIR is circumscribed by the factum and caution, in that event, H 992 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 7 S.C.R. A the revisional jurisdiction, particularly, while dealing with framing of a charge, has to be even more limited. Section 397 of the Code vests the court with the power to call for and examine the records of an inferior court for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and B regularity of any proceedings or order made in a case. The object of this provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be a well founded error and it may not be appropriate for the court to scrutinize the order, which upon the face of it bears a c token of careful consideration and appear to be in accordan~e with law. Where the court is dealing with the question as to whether the charge has been framed properly and in accordance with law in a given case, it may be reluctant to interfere in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction unless the case substantially falls within the stated categories. Even framing of charge is a much advanced stage in the proceedings under the Code. The revisional jurisdiction of the higher court is a very limited one and cannot' be exercised in a routine manner. One E of the inbuilt restrictions is that it should not be against an interim or interlocutory order. The court has to keep in mind that the exercise of revisional jurisdiction itself should not lead to injustice ex facie. [Para 8-10) [1015-E; 1013-A-C; E-G] 0 State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Swapan Kumar Guha & Ors. (1982) 1 sec 561. State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors. 1992 Supp. (1) sec 335

2.2. On the other hand, s. 482 is based upon the maxim quando lex liquid alicuiconcedit, conceder videtur id quo res ipsa esse non protest, i.e., when the law gives anything to anyone, it also gives all those things without which the thing itself would be unavoidable. The Section F G H AMIT KAPOOR v. RAMESH CHANDER & ANR. 993 confers very wide power on the High Court to do justice A and to ensure that the process of court is not permitted to be abused. Inherent power u/s 482 being an extraordinary and residuary power, it is inapplicable in regard to matters which are specifically provided for under other provisions of the Code. Normally the court B may not invoke its power u/s 482 where a party could have availed of the remedy available u/s 397 itself. The inherent powers u/s 482, are of a wide magnitude and are not as limited as the power u/s 397. Section 482 can be invoked where the order in question is neither an c interlocutory order within the meaning of s.397(2) nor a final order in the strict sense. The distinction between a final and an interlocutory order is well known in law. The orders which will be free from the bar of s.397(2) would be orders which are not purely interlocutory but at the 0 same time are less than a final disposal. They should be the orders which do determine some right and still are not rendering the court functus officio of the lis. The provisions of s. 482 are pervasive. It should not subvert legal interdicts written into the same Code but, inherent E powers of the High Court unquestionably have to be read and construed as free of restriction. The use of extraordinary powers conferred upon the High Court under this section are, however, required to be reserved as far as possible for extraordinary cases. Where the factual foundation for an offence has been laid down, the courts should be reluctant and should not hasten to quash the proceedings even on the premise that one or two ingredients have not been stated or do not appear to be satisfied if there is substantial compliance to the requirements of the offence. [paras 12 -14 and 20) [1018- G F-G; 1019-A-C, G-H; 1020-A-C-D; 1026-G] F