The ‘Miscellaneous’ section of the 37th Chapter of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which is titled ‘Inherent powers of the Court,’ contains Section 482. The provisions for the quashing of criminal proceedings are laid out in the code under this clause. The CrPC’s Section 482 declares the high courts.

“Saving of inherent powers of High Court-  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.“

Why inherent power vested with High Court?

When someone commits an offense, it’s not simply a wrong against them; it’s also a crime against society. It directly affects people’s quality of life and right to personal freedom, as well as the interests of a broader society. Therefore, it was wise to only give these powers to the higher courts and highly qualified judges. This also supports (affirms) Section 483, which states that the High Court has the authority to continuously supervise the subordinate judicial magistrate.In Madhu Limaye v. Maharashtra AIR 1978 (47), the Court has observed the following principles that would govern the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction:

1. That inherent power must not be resorted to, if specific provision for redressal of grievances is been given.
2. That it should be carefully used to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure ends of
   justice.
3. That it should not be exercised against the express provision given in any other statute.
   The inherent power would come into play there being no other provision in the code for the grievance redressal
   of the aggrieved party.

Scope of inherent powers of High Court

Inherent powers include – justice by having the authority to stop any criminal case now before the High Court or lower courts, including any ongoing investigations or FIRs. Only when no other provisions are available are these powers used. It is not an issue as to when the High Court may intervene in criminal cases handled by lower courts.
Only when there has been a miscarriage of justice or in cases of unusual circumstances will the High Court intervene.

.The object and purpose of Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been enunciated by the Supreme Court in Dinish Dutt Joshi v. State of Rajasthan (2001) 8 SCC. case as follows:
“The principle embodied in the section is based upon the maxim quando lex aliquid alicui concedet, concedera
videtur et if sine qua res ipsae esse non potest. This maxim means that when the law gives to anyone, it gives all those
things without which the thing itself would be available.

The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, depends on the facts and
circumstances of each case Minu Kumari v State of Bihar (2006) 310 SCC. The High Court in exercise of its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India would not direct quashing of a case involving a crime against the society particularly when both the learned special judges as also the High Court have found that a prima facie case has been made out against the appellants herein for framing a charge.Smt. Rumi Dhar v. State of West Bengal: (2009) 6 Hence, section 482 does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court. The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a First Information Report is not the same as the
invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence under section 320. The decision as to whether a
complaint or First Information Report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the
dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case. As distinguished from serious offences, there
may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct
footing in so far as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned.

What is the inherent power to quash FIR?

The High Court under Section 482 has the power to quash an FIR even after filing of Charge Sheet by the prosecution. The parties can also reach a modus vivendi case. The accused can also appraise the Court that there is no material evidence against him even after the investigation in the matter.

There are various ways through which FIR an be quashed. Those are as follows:

Quashing of FIR after filing of Charge Sheet

Even after the prosecution files a Charge Sheet, the High Court has the authority to revoke a FIR under Section 482. A modus vivendi may also be reached by the parties. Even after the case has been investigated, the accused may inform the court that there is no solid evidence against him. On the basis of all the evidence and facts gathered against him in the charge sheet, the accused also has the option of pleading guilty to charges of inherent improbability. Given that the High Court’s authority under Section 482 is sufficiently broad, it may issue a quashing of FIR order in such cases.

Quashing of FIR on the basis of Compromise

The High Court has the right to revoke the FIR at any time based on a compromise. A compromise between the accuser and complainant is possible. Under Section 482 CrPC, all parties have the option to file a joint plea to have the FIR quashed. The Court would then carefully consider the facts, circumstances, and other factors of the case before making a decision about the quashing of the FIR. The High Court may reject quashing on the basis of compromise if the Court is dissatisfied with the circumstances underlying the compromise. If the offense is compoundable and the High Court declined to drop the FIR, the parties may go before the Trial Court.

Quashing of FIR in Matrimonial Cases

Under Sections 498 A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, women may falsely accuse their husbands and relatives of cruelty in certain matrimonial conflicts . The parties to the matrimonial issue do, however, eventually reach a solution. They typically put it in writing and create a Mutual Compromise Deed that contains all of the settlement’s terms and conditions. To record their remarks and for identification purposes, the parties must appear before the High Court.

Quashing of FIR in Financial Disputes

When a financial disagreement is resolved after the parties reach an agreement, quashing the FIR in cases of economic offenses is the natural line of action. If certain major offenses other than economic offenses are involved, parties frequently turn to a Compromise Deed and seek to have the FIR quashed. In accordance with the authority granted by Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the High Court may issue an order for quashing on the basis of settlement while taking the case’s facts and circumstances into consideration.

Mahendera KC Vs State of Karnataka 2021 in this case two tests to quash an FIR 1st whether the allegations made in the complaint, prima facie constitute an offence. 2nd the court noted that the allegations shall be so improbable to appeal to a prudent man and e would not arrive at the finally there is a sufficient ground to proceed with the complaint.

Conclusion

In order for the High courts to carry out their duties and achieve the goal of justice, Section 482 Cr.P.C. has a very broad reach. However, it should be highlighted that because of its size, this power is also quite ambiguous and subject to interpretation. It is crucial that courts use it carefully and in accordance with the rules established by the Supreme Court and High Courts. With the times and as necessary in any circumstance, Section 482 has undergone numerous alterations in its current form.