Inherent Jurisdiction U/S 528 BNSS Can Be Exercised To Prevent Abuse Of Process, Not To Reopen Concluded Adjudication: Delhi High Court

Justice Arun Monga however clarified that the power can be exercised only to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or to secure the ends of justice but, it cannot be invoked to reopen/ rehear the bail plea.

The bench observed,

“Ordinary rule is Courts cannot exercise jurisdiction in a disposed-of matter unless a statutory provision allows review/recall (which a criminal court clearly lacks). However, under Section 528, the High Court retains inherent powers to pass orders to prevent abuse of the process of Court or secure justice, even in circumstances not covered by the express provisions of the BNSS. This includes situations where- continuing the criminal proceedings in a particular matter would frustrate the administration of justice and/or there is an attempt to misuse the Court's process through technicalities. Clearly, this power cannot be used to rehear a matter or reopen a concluded adjudication under the guise of inherent jurisdiction.”

It illustrated— if the accused is trying to misuse the bail order in a way that affects the investigation, the High Court ought to intervene under Section 528 — not as a continuation of the bail proceeding, but under its inherent jurisdiction in a fresh cause.

At the same time, it said, if the bail applicant is merely seeking to reargue bail or reopen the disposed bail application, that would be barred, because inherent power is not a substitute for appeal or review.

In the case at hand, Complainant of the Cheating FIR had moved an application in the accused's anticipatory bail plea, which stood disposed, seeking directions for release of ₹1,50,00,000/- deposited by the accused in course of the bail proceedings.

At the outset, the High Court observed that it appeared to be a case of complete abuse of police powers in as much as, the FIR was registered in 2019, that too qua a dispute which seemingly is outright civil in nature.

The counsel for the complainant however contended that the FIR in question is not under challenge and therefore, the Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain any question qua legality of the FIR.

It was further contended that inherent powers under Section 528 cannot be used as a substitute to revive a concluded matter and once a bail application has been disposed of, the Court becomes functus officio in respect of that proceeding and there is no statutory provision enabling the reopening or recalling of a disposed-of bail matter, except by way of appeal or cancellation of bail under appropriate procedure.

The High Court however was of the view that merely because the present application was moved within the disposed of bail proceeding cannot be treated as a “bar” where the substance of the matter relates to preventing abuse of the law or protecting the integrity of the judicial process.

“This Court cannot fold its hands merely because the bail file has been formally closed. A narrow view of jurisdiction would defeat the very purpose of Section 528, which is designed as a constitutional safety valve for the administration of criminal justice,” the bench said.

In the present case, the Court was satisfied that to refuse examination of FIR on a mere technicality of the bail matter being 'disposed of' would result in gross injustice.

“The High Court's inherent powers extend to moulding relief to prevent abuse, regardless of the procedural posture of the earlier matter…If subsequent developments reveal abuse of law or threat to the fairness of trial, the High Court cannot decline intervention on a mere technicality,” it remarked.

The Court agreed that exercise of inherent powers has to be sparing and exceptional. However, it said a hyper-technical view would defeat the very object of Section 528, which is to preserve judicial control against abuse of process of law.

“The present matter warrants examination because the FIR allegations, if not acceptable to reflect any criminality, may strike at the root of a fair investigation and trial. In the present case, it is merely the bail order which has attained finality, but this Court's inherent jurisdiction is not exhausted. Provided of course, if it is found necessary to prevent an abuse of process, which is the essential test and a sine qua non.”

To conclude, the Court held that jurisdiction under Section 528 exists independently of the disposed-of bail application. However, to exercise the same, it is to be seen whether the situation covered by Section 528 exists, not necessarily as a fresh or separate proceeding so as to invoke inherent powers. The Court must be satisfied and record reasons that intervention is essential to prevent abuse of process or secure justice.

Finally, the Court quashed the impugned FIR and the complainant's application for release of money deposited by the accused in bail proceedings was rejected, with liberty to seek appropriate remedy, in civil law.

Appearance: Mr.Jinendra Jain, Ms. Bijay Lakshmi, Mr.M.N. Mishra, Mr.Krishna Sharma, Mr.Manoj Gautam and Ms.Kashish Gupta, Advocates for Petitioner; Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, APP for State with IO Ashok Chauhan, PS Rani Bagh. Mr. Bharat Gupta &Mr. Tushar Rohmetra, Advocates for the complainant.

Case title: Yogesh Singh v. State NCT of Delhi

Case no.: BAIL APPLN. 3183/2020

Click here to read judgment