Miscellaneous Provisions Sections 520 to 531

Section 528, BNSS 2023

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.

📖 R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866

Facts: A first information report having been registered and the investigation being in progress, the accused moved the High Court to quash the proceedings. The Supreme Court examined the scope of the inherent power and the categories of case in which quashing is appropriate.

Held: The Supreme Court held that the inherent power of the High Court is saved, not conferred, by the provision, and is to be exercised sparingly and only where the proceeding cannot be dealt with by an express provision. It identified the categories in which quashing is proper: where there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the proceeding — such as the absence of a required sanction; where the allegations in the first information report or complaint, even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged; and where the allegations do constitute the offence but there is either no legal evidence adduced in support, or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge. The Court held that in exercising the power the High Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to whether the evidence is reliable or whether, on a reasonable appreciation of it, the accusation would be sustained — that being the function of the trial court.

Ratio: The inherent power is saved and not conferred, and is exercised sparingly. Quashing is proper where there is a legal bar, where the allegations taken at face value do not constitute the offence, or where there is no legal evidence in support — but not to weigh the reliability of evidence.

📖 Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 19 SCC 401

Facts: High Courts, while declining to quash first information reports, had been passing interim orders directing that no coercive steps be taken against the accused — orders which neither quashed the proceeding nor permitted the investigation to go on. The Supreme Court examined the propriety of such orders and restated the principles governing the inherent power.

Held: The Supreme Court held that the police have a statutory right and duty to investigate a cognizable offence, and that a court should ordinarily not interfere with that investigation. The power to quash is to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection, and in the rarest of rare cases, and the Court is not to conduct a mini-trial or appreciate the evidence. Where the Court declines to quash, it should not pass an order of “no coercive steps to be taken”: such an order is neither one thing nor the other — it stalls the investigation while deciding nothing, and is in substance an interim order the Court has declined to justify. The Court held that if a case for quashing is made out the High Court should quash; if it is not, it should dismiss the petition and allow the investigation to proceed, the accused having his remedies at every subsequent stage. It added that any interim relief must be supported by brief reasons and must not be granted as a matter of routine.

Ratio: The police have a statutory right to investigate and courts should ordinarily not interfere. The power to quash is exercised sparingly and without a mini-trial; and a court declining to quash should not pass an order of “no coercive steps”, which stalls the investigation while deciding nothing.

⚠ Three rules that govern the inherent power

It is not a new power. Section 528 saves an inherent power the High Court already possesses; it does not confer one, and gives the High Court no jurisdiction it would not otherwise have.

It is exercised sparingly, in the rarest of rare cases — not because the category is narrow in principle, but because quashing at the threshold denies the State the opportunity to prove its case.

And it cannot defeat an express provision. Where the Sanhita has dealt with a matter specifically, the inherent power cannot be used to reach a result the specific provision excludes — section 438(2), barring revision against an interlocutory order, being the clearest instance.

It is available only for the three purposes the section names: to give effect to an order under the Sanhita, to prevent abuse of the process of any Court, or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.

Section 530, BNSS 2023 — new

All trials, inquiries and proceedings under this Sanhita, including —

(i) the issuance, service and execution of summons and warrant;

(ii) examination of complainant and witnesses;

(iii) the recording of evidence in inquiries and trials; and

(iv) all appellate proceedings or any other proceeding,

may be held in electronic mode, by use of electronic communication or use of audio-video electronic means.

⚠ What section 530 does not do

It does not compel electronic proceedings. The word is may. A court retains the discretion to require physical presence where the circumstances need it, and an accused or a witness cannot insist on appearing electronically as of right.

It does not displace the other requirements. Evidence recorded electronically must still satisfy the provisions on how evidence is recorded, on the presence of the accused or his advocate, and on signature and authentication.

And it does not dispense with the open court principle. Section 366 continues to apply, and a proceeding held in electronic mode is still a proceeding in open court unless it falls within the provisions permitting exclusion of the public.

The position stated shortly

1. Section 528 saves the inherent power of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to an order under the Sanhita, to prevent abuse of the process of any Court, or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.

2. The power is saved, not conferred, is exercised sparingly, and cannot defeat an express provision of the Sanhita.

3. Quashing is proper where there is a legal bar; where the allegations taken at face value do not constitute the offence; or where there is no legal evidence in support: R.P. Kapur.

4. The Court may not weigh the reliability of evidence or conduct a mini-trial — that is the function of the trial court.

5. The police have a statutory right and duty to investigate, and courts should ordinarily not interfere: Neeharika Infrastructure.

6. A court declining to quash should not pass an order of “no coercive steps”, which stalls the investigation while deciding nothing. It should either quash or dismiss and let the investigation proceed.

7. Section 530 is new: all trials, inquiries and proceedings — including summons and warrants, the examination of complainant and witnesses, the recording of evidence, and all appellate proceedings — may be held in electronic mode.

8. It is the general authority under which the Sanhita’s other electronic features operate, converting a series of specific permissions into one enabling provision.

9. But the word is may: it does not compel electronic proceedings, does not displace the requirements governing how evidence is recorded, and does not dispense with the open court principle.

10. The Chapter also contains section 525 (no Judge or Magistrate to try a case in which he is a party or personally interested), section 526 (a practising advocate not to sit as a Magistrate in that court), section 529 (the duty of continuous superintendence), and section 531 (repeal and savings).