What Punjab and Haryana High Court held on unfettered powers of High Courts

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently said that High Courts should have unfettered powers to deal with situations not expressly provided for by the law.

Justice Sumeet Goel said that though laws attempt to deal with all cases that may arise, the “infinite variety of circumstances which shape events” and the imperfections of language make it impossible to lay down provisions capable of governing every case.

“A High Court which exists for the furtherance of justice in an indefatigable manner, should therefore, have unfettered power(s) to deal with situations which, though not expressly provided for by the law, need to be dealt with, to prevent injustice or the abuse of the process of law and Courts,” the judge said.

The Bench made these observations while commenting on the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the provision equivalent to Section 482 of the repealed Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

The inherent powers of a High Court are powers which are “incidental replete powers” without which the Court would be obliged to sit still and helplessly see the process of law and Courts being abused for the purposes of injustice, the judge said.

“In other words; such power(s) is intrinsic to a High Court, it is its very life-blood, its very essence, its immanent attribute. Without such power(s), a High Court would have form but lack of substance. These powers of a High Court hence deserve to be construed with the wildest possible amplitude,” the Court stressed.

The observations were made while dealing with a revision petition against conviction of a man in a bigamy case.

During the pendency of the plea, an application was moved for quashing the conviction on the basis of compromises between the parties.

Justice Goel said the High Court, in the exercise of its inherent power, has the discretion to quash a conviction where the parties have reached an amicable statement, provided that such compromise does not impinge upon the public interest or undermine justice.

Considering the facts of the case, the Court found it fit to set aside the conviction and sentence order passed by the trial court in 2006. 

The petitioner was acquitted of the bigamy charge under Section 494 (marrying again during lifetime of husband or wife) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 

Advocate Priyavrat Prashar represented the petitioner.

Advocate Priyanka Sadar represented the State of Haryana.

Advocate Ashish Pundir represented the complainant.