High Court exercised jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash criminal proceedings—Emphasis on abuse of process of law—No bar under Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 482—Principles laid down in precedents reaffirmed

The High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 is not ousted merely because an alternative remedy under Section 482 CrPC exists. If criminal proceedings prima facie reflect abuse of process, the Court can intervene under Article 226. Precedents reaffirm the principle that constitutional remedies are wider and not strictly limited by statutory provisions.

The High Court held that it had the power under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash criminal proceedings in cases of abuse of process or gross injustice. It reaffirmed that the inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC do not bar writ jurisdiction under Article 226. The Court emphasized that extraordinary jurisdiction must be exercised cautiously and sparingly.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

• Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226
• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 482
• Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Relevant provisions applied in case

Subjects:

Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Jurisdiction of High Court – Abuse of Process – Article 226 COI – Inherent Powers – Section 482 CrPC – Maintainability of Writ Petition – Alternative Remedy – Precedents

Facts:

a. Nature of the litigation – Petitioner invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking quashing of criminal proceedings.
b. Who is asking the court and for what remedy? – Petitioner sought quashing of the criminal proceedings initiated against him on the grounds of malafide intent and abuse of process.
c. Reason for filing the case – Petitioner contended that criminal proceedings were vexatious and initiated to harass him, urging the High Court to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction.
d. What has already been decided until now? – The lower court had refused to interfere, leading to the filing of the writ petition before the High Court.

Issues:

• Whether the High Court could invoke its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 to quash criminal proceedings when an alternative remedy under Section 482 of CrPC was available?
• Whether the criminal proceedings against the petitioner amounted to an abuse of the process of law?

Submissions/Arguments:

a. Petitioner’s Argument – Asserted that the proceedings were initiated with an ulterior motive and constituted an abuse of process, justifying quashing under Article 226.
b. Respondent’s Argument – Contended that the petitioner had an alternative remedy under Section 482 of CrPC and that the writ petition was not maintainable.