Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
Section 528
Saving of inherent powers of High Court
Nothing in this Sanhita shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Sanhita, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
Why this exists
No procedural code can anticipate every possible situation that justice might demand. This section preserves the High Court's inherent — meaning natural and pre-existing — powers as a safety valve, so that when the specific rules in the Sanhita don't cover a situation, or a lower court's process is being misused (such as through a frivolous or malicious criminal case), the High Court can still step in to prevent injustice. This is one of the most frequently invoked provisions in Indian criminal practice, carried forward from the earlier Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, where it was famously section 482, often used to quash FIRs and criminal proceedings.
How courts read it
Under the identically-worded predecessor provision (CrPC section 482), the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992) laid down guidelines for when High Courts can use this inherent power to quash a First Information Report or criminal proceedings — for instance, where allegations, even if true, do not disclose an offence, or where the case is manifestly frivolous or instituted with mala fide intent. Courts consistently caution that this power must be used sparingly and only to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice, not as a routine substitute for trial.
Common misconceptions
- Myth: The High Court can use this power to interfere in any case it wants, whenever it wants.
Fact: Courts have held this inherent power should be used sparingly and cautiously, mainly to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice, not as a routine tool to override ordinary trial procedure.