Inherent criminal jurisdiction can survive a revision bar, while foreign travel may be allowed on verified emergency grounds with safeguards.
The High Court's inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC can still be invoked to prevent abuse of process and secure justice, even where a further revision is barred by Section 397(3); the challenge was treated as one under residual inherent power and held maintainable. On travel abroad, the Court required verified exceptional grounds and adequate safeguards: the first petitioner was allowed limited travel on a time-bound basis because a medical emergency concerning her minor son was supported by authenticated diplomatic communications, while the second petitioner was denied relief for want of urgency. Security deposit and an undertaking to return were treated as sufficient safeguards for the limited permission granted.
Issues: (i) Whether the petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was maintainable despite the earlier revision and the bar under Section 397(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. (ii) Whether permission to travel abroad should be granted, and if so, to which petitioner and on what conditions.
Issue (i): Whether the petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was maintainable despite the earlier revision and the bar under Section 397(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Analysis: The inherent power of the High Court is saved by Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice. The statutory bar on a further revision under Section 397(3) does not extinguish that inherent jurisdiction where the Court is called upon to exercise a limited residual power. The challenge was therefore examined as one invoking inherent jurisdiction rather than as a second revision.
Conclusion: The petition was held maintainable.
Issue (ii): Whether permission to travel abroad should be granted, and if so, to which petitioner and on what conditions.
Analysis: The record showed no urgent ground for the second petitioner to travel abroad. In contrast, the first petitioner established a verified medical emergency concerning her minor son, supported by authenticated diplomatic communications confirming the genuineness of the documents and the need for her presence. The Court also noted the customs proceedings and the concern regarding return, but treated the Embassy's verified undertaking and a monetary deposit as sufficient safeguards. On those facts, humanitarian considerations outweighed the apprehension of non-return in relation to the first petitioner alone.
Conclusion: Permission to travel abroad was refused to the second petitioner and allowed to the first petitioner for a limited period on specified conditions including deposit of security and an obligation to return.
Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded only in part, with limited relief granted to the first petitioner for a time-bound travel abroad arrangement and the remaining relief declined.
Ratio Decidendi: The High Court may invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 notwithstanding an earlier revision bar where necessary to secure justice, and foreign travel may be permitted on verified exceptional grounds if adequate safeguards secure the accused's return.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
