Discuss the inherent powers of the High Court under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. What are the principles laid down by Supreme Court in the case of Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra 1978 AIR 47, to govern the exe

Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C. or Code) is one of the most important sections of the Code. It says that nothing in this Code 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 Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The powers of the High Court under section 482 Cr.P.C are partly administrative and partly judicial. Inherent powers under section 482 of Cr.P.C. include powers to quash FIR, investigation or any criminal proceedings pending before the High Court or any Courts subordinate to it and are of wide magnitude and ramification. Court can always take note of any miscarriage of justice and prevent the same by exercising its powers under section 482 of Cr.P.C. These powers are neither limited nor curtailed by any other provisions of the Code. However, such inherent powers are to be exercised sparingly and with caution. The Supreme Court in Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, 1978 AIR 47 , has held that the following principles would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction of the High Court: Power is not to be resorted to, if there is a specific provision in the Code for redress of grievances of aggrieved party. It should be exercised very sparingly to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. It should not be exercised as against the express bar of the law engrafted in any other provision of the code. It is well settled that the inherent powers under section 482 can be exercised only when no other remedy is available to the litigant and not where a specific remedy is provided by the statute. If an effective alternative remedy is available, the High Court will not exercise its powers under this section, especially when the applicant may not have availed of that remedy. Alternate Answer (Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) Inherent Powers of High Court Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Sanhita) is one of the most important sections of the Sanhita. It says that 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. The powers of the High Court under section 528 of Sanhita are partly administrative and partly judicial. Inherent powers under section 528 of Sanhita include powers to quash FIR, investigation or any criminal proceedings pending before the High Court or any Courts subordinate to it and are of wide magnitude and ramification. Court can always take note of any miscarriage of justice and prevent the same by exercising its powers under section 528 of Sanhita. These powers are neither limited nor curtailed by any other provisions of the Code. However, such inherent powers are to be exercised sparingly and with caution. The Supreme Court in Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, 1978 AIR 47 , has held that the following principles would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction of the High Court: Power is not to be resorted to, if there is a specific provision in the Code for redress of grievances of aggrieved party. It should be exercised very sparingly to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. It should not be exercised as against the express bar of the law engrafted in any other provision of the code. It is well settled that the inherent powers can be exercised only when no other remedy is available to the litigant and not where a specific remedy is provided by the statute. If an effective alternative remedy is available, the High Court will not exercise its powers under this section, especially when the applicant may not have availed of that remedy.