Inherent criminal jurisdiction is limited: no interference with custody access order where no cogent ground was shown.

The inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is limited to giving effect to orders under the Code, preventing abuse of process, or securing the ends of justice, and must be exercised sparingly in exceptional cases. On the facts presented, no cogent legal basis was shown to interfere with the order refusing physical meetings with counsel during custody. The requested facility was not justified through extraordinary jurisdiction, and the petition was declined for the relief sought.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 warranted interference with the order refusing physical meetings with counsel during custody.

Analysis: The inherent power under Section 482 is confined to giving effect to orders under the Code, preventing abuse of process, or securing the ends of justice. Such power is to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection, and only in exceptional cases. On the facts, no legal basis was shown to require interference with the impugned order, and no cogent ground existed to grant the requested facility through the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The petition was not maintainable for the relief sought and interference with the impugned order was declined.

---