Inherent Powers Not a Substitute for Statutory Remedy: Allahabad High Court Dismisses 482 CrPC Petition in Criminal Breach of Trust Case

High Court's Inherent Jurisdiction Must Yield to Statutory Procedure Unless Exceptional Circumstances Exist" – In a significant reiteration of the limits of High Court’s inherent jurisdiction, the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), dismissed an application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 406 IPC in a pending matter.

The case, Sangram Singh v. State of U.P. & Another, concerned a challenge to summoning and discharge orders passed by the Trial Court. Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan held that since a statutory remedy of revision was available, the applicant’s invocation of Section 482 CrPC was not maintainable.

The Court granted liberty to the 92-year-old applicant to approach the revisional court within ten days, and restrained coercive action in the interim.

The applicant, Sangram Singh, aged 92, is an accused in Criminal Case No. 1172/2018, registered under Section 406 IPC (criminal breach of trust) at Police Station Alambagh, Lucknow. Aggrieved by the summoning and discharge orders of the trial court, he invoked the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC (and Section 528 BNSS, 2023), seeking quashing of proceedings.

While the applicant's counsel contended that the criminal proceedings were legally unsustainable, the State and the complainant opposed the application, citing binding precedents of the Supreme Court limiting the use of Section 482 CrPC when alternative statutory remedies like revision are available.

The principal question before the Court was:

Whether the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC can be invoked to quash criminal proceedings where an equally efficacious statutory remedy of revision exists?

The Court answered in the negative, strongly relying on a series of Supreme Court rulings that caution against bypassing statutory remedies.

“Though the inherent power of the High Court is unlimited, the Apex Court has held in catena of cases that the remedy under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be invoked sparingly and with caution.” [Para 4]

Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Vipin Sahni v. CBI, 2024 (2) ACR 952 (SC), the Court observed:

“The Apex Court… precisely held that when the specific remedy of revision is available, it could not have been ignored and a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed.” [Para 3]

Similarly, in Mohit @ Sonu v. State of U.P., (2013) 7 SCC 789, the Supreme Court had held:

“The inherent power of the Court can be exercised when there is no remedy provided in the Code of Criminal Procedure for redressal of the grievance.” [Para 3]

The Court clarified that no such compelling or exceptional circumstances existed in the present case which would justify invoking Section 482 CrPC:

“Those extreme circumstances are not visible in the present case, therefore… the applicant should approach the revisional court by filing his revision.” [Para 6]

Discussion on Precedent: Prabhu Chawla & Madhu Limaye

Though the applicant cited the decision in Prabhu Chawla v. State of Rajasthan (MANU/SC/0979/2016) to argue that revision and 482 CrPC are not mutually exclusive, the Court distinguished that authority, explaining:

“Even so, a general principle pervades this branch of law: when a specific provision is made, easy resort to inherent power is not right except under compelling circumstances.” [Para 5 quoting Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, (1977) 4 SCC 551]

Thus, the Court reiterated a long-standing legal principle: inherent powers exist to fill the gaps, not override specific legal procedures.

Relief Considering Applicant’s Age and Health

In a measure of judicial sensitivity, the Court took into account that the applicant is 92 years old, and non-bailable warrants had been issued against him. The Court directed:

“If the aforesaid revision is filed within time so stipulated i.e., ten days, no coercive steps may be taken against him.” [Para 8]

It also permitted the applicant to file a bail application simultaneously, which the competent court must decide:

“…in the light of Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2022) 10 SCC 733.” [Para 8]

The Allahabad High Court firmly held that Section 482 CrPC is not a backdoor to circumvent statutory revision, especially when no extreme or unavoidable circumstances exist. While affirming the principle of judicial restraint, the Court provided reasonable relief to the elderly applicant by safeguarding his liberty conditionally.

“Easy resort to inherent power is not right except under compelling circumstances.” [Para 5 quoting Madhu Limaye]

By balancing procedural discipline with compassionate consideration for the applicant's age, this ruling reinforces the primacy of statutory remedies in criminal law, while acknowledging the inherent jurisdiction as a tool of last resort.

Date of Decision: July 22, 2025