TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in refusing to exercise inherent jurisdiction to set aside the order issuing summons against the appellants, where the police had not found material against them and the Magistrate later treated their inclusion as a mistake.
Analysis: The Code permits a Magistrate, on receipt of a police report, to accept it, disagree with it and take cognizance, or direct further investigation. A Magistrate may take cognizance even if the police report does not implicate a person, but where the record shows that names were included in the summoning order by mistake and the police had not found material against those persons, the situation is different. Section 362 bars review of a judgment or order except for clerical or arithmetical mistakes, while Section 482 preserves the High Court's inherent power to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice. That power must be exercised sparingly, but it can be invoked where continuation of proceedings against a person would be unjust and unsupported by the investigation.
Conclusion: The High Court ought to have exercised inherent jurisdiction. The order refusing relief was unsustainable, and the appellants' names were liable to be struck off from the array of accused.
TaxTMI 
