Inherent Powers of Courts

By

Qaiser Javed Mian

Director Research/Faculty Member
Punjab Judicial Academy, Lahore.
 -1-
Section 151 C.P.C.

“Saving of inherent powers of Court. –

Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to
limit or otherwise affect the inherent power
of the Court to make such orders as may
be necessary for the ends of justice or to
prevent abuse of the process of the
Court.‖
 -2-
Section 561-A Cr.P.C.

“Saving of inherent power of High

Court. Nothing in this Code shall be
deemed to limit or affect the inherent
power 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.‖
 -3-
• Root word “Inhere”, Black’s Law Dictionary
meaning:
―to exist as a permanent, inseparable, or
essential attribute or quality of a thing;
to be intrinsic to something‖

• “Jurisdiction” Black’s Law Dictionary meaning:

―A court’s power to decide a case or issue a
decree;
―A geographic area within which political or
judicial authority may be exercised;
A political or judicial sub-division within such an
area‖
 -4-
Halsbury’s Laws of England, Definition of
“Inherent Jurisdiction”
―In sum it may be said that the inherent
jurisdiction of the court is a virile and viable
doctrine, and has been defined as being the
reserve fund of powers, a residual source of
powers, which the court may draw upon as
necessary whenever it is just or equitable to
do so, in particular to ensure the observance
of due process of law, to prevent vexation or
oppression, to do justice between the parties
and to secure a fair trial between them‖.
 -5-
Definition formulated by Me

Both the terms i.e. ―Inherent‖ and

―jurisdiction‖ read together would
mean a permanent, essential and
intrinsic power of a court to decide a
case or issue a decree within the
specified geographical area and
within the specified judicial sub-
division.
 6. M. Naeem
Versus
The State through Prosecutor General, Province of
Sindh..
2010 P Cr. L J 1039
Karachi High Court, Sindh

Provisions of S. 561-A, Cr.P.C. had

saved/protected inherent jurisdiction
of High Court to pass any order to
secure the ends of justice and
prevent the abuse of process of the
court.
 7. Dr. Muhammad Naseem Versus State
2009 YLR 252
Karachi-High-Court-Sindh
• S. 561-A---inherent jurisdiction under S.
561-A, Cr.P.C.---Scope---Proceedings
under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. do not
provide any additional or alternate remedy
and High Court cannot assume the
function of Trial Court; however, in
appropriate cases, in order to avoid the
abuse of process of Court, High Court in
exercise of its power under section 561-A,
Cr.P.C. can quash the proceedings.
 8. Khuda Bux Versus The State
2010 P MLD 864
Karachi High Court, Sindh

• S.561-A---Quashing of order---inherent
jurisdiction of High Court-Scope.

• Purpose of invoking provisions of S.561-A,

Cr.P.C. was mainly to prevent abuse of
process of court; and to secure the ends of
justice.
 9. Muhammad Ali Versus Muhammad Aslam.
2002 MLD 726
Karachi High Court, Sindh
High Court possessed inherent powers under S.561-
A, Cr.P.C., but said provisions were not meant for
the purpose of thwarting the criminal proceedings
pending in the lower courts and the High Court,
ordinarily, would not interfere at intermediate stage of
criminal proceedings in a subordinate Court---In certain
cases wherein apparently a miscarriage of justice had
occurred and there was no probability of any kind of
conviction and that apparently the continuation of the
proceedings amounted to abuse of process of law,
the High Court; in order to prevent the abuse of
process of Court, must interfere and if the
prosecution, on the face of it, was illegal, the
proceedings in such cases could be rightly quashed.
 10. Abdul Hussain Versus Muhammad Shabbir.
2000 YLR 1603
Karachi High Court, Sindh

• Quashing of order or proceedings---Jurisdiction

of High Court---Scope and nature---High Court,
in exercise of its power under S.561-A, Cr.P.C.
normally would refrain from interfering in normal
course of trial or subordinate courts, particularly
where evidence had not been recorded---
Inherent jurisdiction of High Court could not be
invoked merely because accused considered
allegations leveled against them to be false---
Jurisdiction under S.561-A, Cr.P.C. was not
additional or alternate but such powers were
to be exercised sparingly to correct errors of
law in exceptional cases.
11. Sh. Naveedur Rehman Versus The State.
2010 P Cr. L J 1340
Lahore High Court, Lahore
• Quashing of F.I.R.---Disputed question of
facts could not be gone into by High Court
while exercising its extraordinary
Constitutional jurisdiction---If an offence
had, prima facie, been committed, the
same should be inquired into and tried by
Trial Court---inherent jurisdiction of High
Court was not an alternative or additional
jurisdiction.
 12. Muhammad Nawaz Versus State
1994 MLD 1102
Karachi-High-Court-Sindh

Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) ---S.

561-A---Inherent powers of High Court--
-High Court in appropriate case can
exercise jurisdiction under S.561-A,
Cr.P.C. as the powers of High Court are
co-extensive with powers of Trial Courts
under Ss. 265-K or 249-A, Cr.P.C.
 13. Ghulam Abbas Shah
Versus
D.I.G of Police, Rawalpindi Range, Rawalpindi.
2001 YLR 186
Lahore High Court, Lahore
• Constitution of Pakistan 1973----Art. 199---Criminal
Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 561-A & 156---
Constitutional jurisdiction and inherent powers of
High Court---Interference with investigation and re-
investigation---Superior Courts cannot control
investigations and re-investigations, but are
empowered to strike down any order of re-
investigation if the same is based on mala fides
or is ulteriorly motivated---Court cannot stop the
investigation and cannot strike down an order of
re-investigation merely on the ground that
previously a police officer has finalized the
investigation.
 14. Muhammad Channah
Versus
Province of Sindh through Home Secretary.
2011 P Cr. L J 952
Karachi High Court, Singh
S. 561-A---Inherent powers of High Court---Scope---
Prima facie case---Effect---Inherent jurisdiction is not
an alternative or additional jurisdiction---Such is only
in the interest of justice to redress grievances for which
no other procedure is available---Power given by S.561-
A, Cr.P.C. cannot be so utilized as to interrupt or divert
ordinary course of criminal procedure as laid down in
procedural statute---criminal cases should proceed
before courts concerned in accordance with normal law--
-If prima facie case is made out, the proper course is that
the same be tried---Mere claim of innocence by accused
can never be considered sufficient to justify such
departure because if the same was permitted then every
accused person would opt to stifle prosecution and to
have his guilt or innocence determined under S.561-A,
Cr.P.C.
15. Muhammad Ghufran Versus The State
2010 P Cr. L J 351
Karachi High Court, Sindh
• S.561-A---inherent powers of High
Court---inherent jurisdiction of High Court
under S.561-A, Cr.P.C. is not of an
alternate or additional character and is to
be invoked rarely only in the interest of
justice for seeking redress of grievances,
in the absence of any other procedure---
Section 561-A, Cr.P.C. should not be
availed to obstruct or to divert the ordinary
course of criminal procedure.
 16. Chief Justice of Pakistan Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry
Versus
President of Pakistan through Secretary.
2010 PLD 61
Supreme Court
• Restraining a Judge from exercising his judicial power and
from discharging the obligations cast on him by the
Constitution---Effect---Even a temporary interference with
the office of the Chief Justice or of a Judge, even when he
had not been suspended but in fact appointed to another
judicial office, amounted to his ―removal from office‖---No
constitutional, the legal and the legislative frame-work
of Pakistan recognize any inherent, ancillary or
incidental powers with the competent authority to
suspend or to restrain from working, Chief Justice of
Pakistan whose tenure in office stood guaranteed by
the Constitution---Chief Justice of Pakistan could not be
suspended from office or could be restrained from
exercising the judicial’ powers appertaining to his
office, in exercise of some alleged inherent, ancillary,
implied or implicit powers, vesting in the President.
17. Habib-ur-Rehman Versus The State.
2010 P Cr. L J 658
Quetta High Court, Balochistan
• Inherent power of High Court---Review---
Sanctity of finality is, no doubt, attached to
a judgment passed by a criminal Court by
virtue of section 369 Cr.P.C., but High Court
under its inherent power can review or
recall its judgment or order if found to have
been passed without jurisdiction, without
adjudication on merits, in violation of any
law or obtained by playing fraud on the
Court.
 18. 2010 PTD 1418 Customs,
Federal Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal

• Ss.193-A & 194---Review---Scope---

No court much less the Tribunal
having the special and limited
jurisdiction possesses the inherent
power to review its order unless
this power is expressly granted
by the statue.
 19. Lal Khan
Versus
Station House Officer, Police Station Kotwali, Jhang.
2010 P Cr. L J 182
Lahore High Court, Lahore
• S.561-A---Constitutional jurisdiction and
inherent powers of High Court---Scope---
High Court, in exercise of constitutional
jurisdiction and inherent powers, was
supposed to take effective steps to
safeguard legal rights of the people and
the system.
 20. Lal Khan
Versus
Station House Officer, Police Station Kotwali, Jhang.
2010 P Cr. L J 182
Lahore High Court, Lahore
In order to enforce law of the land and to enable
alleged abductee and her second
husband/accused, to lead peaceful matrimonial
life of their choice, it was fully justified to
exercise constitutional jurisdiction and inherent
powers by High Court, in their favour. Such an
action by the High Court would not amount to
interference in the allotted sphere of
investigating agency, prosecution and trial court
because the three organs of administration of
justice had stepped over their respective
authority.
21. Yasin alias Bhutto Versus The State.
2010 MLD 998
Lahore High Court, Lahore
• Consideration of period of detention while awarding
sentence to accused and giving benefit of S.382-B,
Cr.P.C.---inherent jurisdiction of High Court---Scope---
Petitioner had prayed for grant of benefit of S.382-B,
Cr.P.C. contending that it was mandatory upon the Trial
Court to consider the question of grant or otherwise of
the benefit of S.382-B, Cr.P.C., but same had not been
done in the case of the petitioner---Validity---High Court
had inherent jurisdiction to extend the benefit of the
provisions of S.382-B, Cr.P.C. to a convict---Petition
filed by the petitioner was allowed and he was extended
the benefit of S.382-B, Cr.P.C.---Period of detention of
accused as under-trial would be counted towards his
sentence.
 22. Mst. Parveen Akhtar
Versus
Muhammad Adnan
2010 C L C 380
Lahore High Court, Lahore
• S. 151---Subsequent events, taking
notice of---inherent jurisdiction of Civil
Court---Scope---Civil Judge had inherent
powers to take notice of subsequent
events and do justice to save parties
from unnecessary litigation.
 23. Mst. Sana Parvaiz
Versus
Muhammad Sajawal Butt
2010 MLD 143
Karachi-High-Court-Sindh
• High Court keeping in view the facts and
circumstances of the case, without going into
the technicalities of law, taking into
consideration the welfare of the minor,
ordered, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction,
that the custody of minor son be handed over
to the petitioner/mother who was entitled to
retain her custody---Interim custody of the
minor son was delivered to the petitioner
(mother).
 24. Natasha Rashid Versus Rashid Zar
2010 PLD 119
Karachi-High-Court-Sindh

• Ss.491 & 561-A---Habeas Corpus Petition---

Maintainability---Custody of minors---Cases
pertaining to custody of children should not be
decided on technicalities---Where petition
under S.491, Cr.P.C is not found to be
competent due to absence of element of illegal
custody by the father of his own child, High
Court can also pass an appropriate order in
exercise of its inherent jurisdiction.
 25. Kawas B . Aga
Versus
City District Government, Karachi (CDGK) through Nazim-e-Ala
2010 PLD 182
Karachi-High-Court-Sindh

• Ss.35 & 35-A---Constitution of Pakistan (1973),

Art.199---Constitutional petition---Costs, awarding
of ---Scope---In addition to actual costs and
compensatory costs, High Court in its
Constitutional jurisdiction can award
compensatory costs even in excess of twenty five
thousands Rupees as prescribed under S.35-
A,C.P.C.---Special costs can also be awarded
by High Court in exercise of its inherent
powers---Costs including compensatory costs as
well as exemplary costs can be imposed by High
Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction.
 26. Federation of Pakistan
Versus
Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif
2009 PLD 284
Supreme-Court
• When the election laws are not providing
any remedial steps, the High court has got
inherent and constitutional powers to
remedy the wrong being done or having
been done by the Election Tribunal---High
court, therefore, has got power and
jurisdiction in such circumstances to
invoke its said power to do justice---
Principles.
 27. Sued Fakhar Imam
Versus
Muhammad Raza Hayat Miraj
2009 CLC 1
Punjab Election Tribunal
• Inherent jurisdiction of court, source of---
Every court, in absence of any express
provision, would be deemed to
possess in its very constitution all
such powers, which would be
necessary to do right and undo a
wrong in the course of administration
of justice.
 28. Muhammad Nawaz
Versus
Ghulam Mustafa Ansari
2009 PLD 467
Lahore-High-Court-Lahore

• Where a forum has power to grant the final

relief, it has inherent power to grant any
interim relief, vice versa, where the forum
itself does not have power to grant the
final relief, it shall have no power even to
grant interim relief.
 29. Zarai Tariqiati Bank Limited through Branch Manager
Versus
Hassan Aftab Fatiana
2009 CLD 36
Lahore-High-Court-Lahore

• Where the Financial Institutions (Recovery of

Finances) Ordinance, 2001 itself provides the
specific procedure for resolving a proposition,
under the settled principles of construction of
statues, the provisions of general law not only
to that extent, but even regarding the inherent
jurisdiction of the court available under Civil
Procedure Code, 1908 shall not be attracted.
 30. Muhammad Ismail Versus Rehmat Ali
2009 YLR 1265
Lahore-High-Court-Lahore
• Judgment and decree in question was assailed by
respondent under S. 12(2), C.P.C. and the same
was set aside by Lower Appellate court in
exercise of revisional jurisdiction ---Validity---
Court had jurisdiction to take cognizance of open
fraud---No rule was required to correct/rectify a
wrong---Court had always inherent powers to
prevent abuse of process of law by moulding
relief in appropriate cases---Provisions of S.151,
C.P.C. were rightly invoked by Lower Appellate
Court in aid of justice, as it was thought
necessary in the circumstances of the case to
prevent abuse of process of the court and to
avoid a situation resulting in stalemate.
 31. Naseer Ahmed Versus State
2009 PCrLJ 1430
Lahore-High-Court-Lahore

• Protective/enabling bail is nowhere defined or

provided in Criminal Procedure Code, 1898.

• It is an injunctive order in exercise of inherent powers

by High court, which is being termed as protective or
enabling bail---Court of session does not have inherent
powers under S.561-A, Cr.P.C. and being creation of
S.9 Cr.P.C., Sessions Judge or Additional Sessions
Judge are competent to grant post-arrest bail in cases
pertaining to their sessions division---Court of Session
is not vested with inherent powers to pass restraining
order/enabling bail in cases pertaining to another
sessions division.
 32. Ghafoor Aslam Versus State
2009 P Cr L J 1108
Lahore-High-Court-Lahore
• S. 561-A---inherent jurisdiction of High
Court, exercise of---Exercise under S.561-A,
Cr.P.C. has to be made sparingly and rarely in
most appropriate cases in order to save a
party from harassment and abuse of the
process of the court---Nevertheless,
jurisdiction of High Court under S.561-A,
Cr.P.C. is very wide and indefinable, but the
same has to be exercised subject to limitations
imposed by law and it cannot by pass the
express provisions of the Criminal Procedure
Code, 1898.
 33. Ghafoor Aslam Versus State
2009 P Cr L J 1108
Lahore-High-Court-Lahore

• Inherent jurisdiction of High court,

exercise of---No invariable rule of law
exists for the exercise of jurisdiction
under S. 561-A, Cr.P.C---It depends on
the facts of each case whether to allow
the proceedings to continue or to nip the
same in the bud.
 34. Gulzar Ahmad
Versus
Superintendent District Jail, Faisalabad
2009 MLD 1068
Lahore-High-Court-Lahore
• Ss.561-A & 397---inherent jurisdiction
of High court---According to the specific
provisions of S.397, Cr.P.C. it is the
prerogative of the Trial Court or the
Appellate Court to pass a direction for
the sentences to run concurrently or not--
-High Court, therefore, cannot pass such
a direction on a petition filed under S.
561-A, Cr.P.C.
35. Rashid Mirza Versus Regional Director
2009 MLD 25
Lahore-High-Court-Lahore.
• Art. 199---Criminal Procedure Code (V of
1898), S.561-A---Quashing of F.I.R.---
Practice and procedure---High Court is
always reluctant in quashing the F.I.R. in
exercise of constitutional jurisdiction and
inherent powers, but at the same time it
is high time for taking effective legal
steps to keep the government
functionaries, departments, institutions
and agencies within their allotted sphere.
 36. Parvaiz Versus Muhammad Ramzan
2009 CLC 513
Lahore-High-Court-Lahore
• Court must remedy injury or wrong done to a
party because of order of court---Procedure
was provided under S. 144 C.P.C., while
power to order restitution was inherent in court
and should be exercised whenever justice
demanded---Present was not a case of
restoration of possession but of restitution of
possession because order of revenue authority
regarding dispossession was set aside by
appellate authority declaring the same to be
illegal and without jurisdiction.
 37. Nizar Ali Fazwani Versus Pak Golf Leasing Company Ltd.
2009 CLD 237
Karachi-High-Court-Sindh

• When on the face of it no case was made out

against the accused, or there was lack of
jurisdiction or when there was sheer abuse of
the process of law, High Court under its
inherent powers under S. 561-A, Cr.P.C. could
quash the F.I.R. or even proceedings for that
matter---Impugned F.I.R was based on mala
fides and ulterior motives and the same being
not sustainable was quashed accordingly.
 38. Tariq Habib Versus State
2009 YLR 1364
Karachi-High-Court-Sindh

• Ss.561-A, 63 & 169---inherent

jurisdiction---Scope---Court can
rectify the injustice done in the case,
when the, order was a result of mala
fides on the part of the police in
getting the accused discharged by
Magistrate.
 39. Shah Jahan Alamgir Shahanshah, Advocate
Versus
Muhammad Sharif
1989 PCRLJ 374
Karachi-High-Court-Sindh
• Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C)---Ss.
561-A & 435-Inherent powers of High
Court, exercise of---Provisions of S.561-
A, Cr.P.C. cannot be pressed into
service to agitate against concurrent
findings of two competent courts below
arrived at after appraisal of evidence.
 40. Gulam Mustafa Versus State
1999 YLR 1616
Karachi-High-Court-Sindh

• Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C)---S. 561-A---Inherent jurisdiction

of High Court---Concept elucidated. Power under section 561-A,
Cr.P.C is not mean to stifle the prosecution but it is intended to
prevent the abuse of the process of court. For quashing proceeding
at the initial stage before framing the charge and recording the
evidence the Court has to consider the allegations made against the
accused on their face value and if a prima facie case is made out
the Court can refuse the quashment. The High Court under section
561-A, Cr.P.C cannot assume the role of trial Court and
evaluate/assess the evidence which is yet to come. It is the function
of the trial Court. High court cannot embark upon such an exercise
to determine the guilt or innocence of a person by way of a detailed
enquiry. The accused may have a good defence but they have to
pass the test of cross-examination and the appreciation of defence
evidence is also the duty of the trial Court in the light of the statutory
provisions and the dictums laid down by the superior courts. The
jurisdiction under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. is an extraordinary one and
powers vested in the High Court are to be exercised sparingly and
not generally or as a matter of routine.
 41. Tariq Versus State
1994 P CR L J 2297
Lahore-High-Court-Lahore

• Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C)---Ss. 561-A;

439-A & 439---Inherent power of High Court---
Effect on other courts---High Court, no doubt,
has inherent powers-under S. 561-A, Cr.P.C. to
interfere with any order or proceedings in the
interest of justice or where miscarriage of justice
has been caused or where such an interference
has been necessitated to meet the ends of
justice, but vesting of such general power in the
High Court cannot be said to have the effect of
depriving other courts of the powers conferred
on them by or under the Code of Criminal
Procedure.
 42. Shaukat Hussain Versus The State.
2002 P Cr. L J 432
Lahore High Court, Lahore.
Application for sending the case to the Court of
Magistrate under Section 30, Cr.P.C. having
been dismissed by the Additional Sessions
Judge, the accused had filed petition under
S.561-A, Cr.P.C. which had been converted by
the High Court into a revision--Courts below had
failed to appreciate the fact that S.31 P.P.C.
which deals with cases relating to Qatl-e-Khata,
was an independent offence and had no nexus
with S.302, P.P.C. which deals with cases
relating to Qatl-e-Amd.
 43. Sajjad Amjad Versus Abdul Hameed
1998 PLD 474
Lahore-High-Court-Lahore

• Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) ---S, 151---Criminal Procedure

Code (V of 1898), S.561-A---Inherent jurisdiction of High Court—
Application for quashing of plaint under S. 151, C.P.C. pending
adjudication---Maintainability---Juxtaposed examination of S.151,
C.P.C and S.561-A, Cr.P.C---Courts are equipped with necessary
enabling powers to pass orders to do acts which are necessary to do
substantial justice between the parties, within the framework of
reason, good conscience and fairness---Necessary elements for
exercise of such power enumerated---High Court, in exercise of its
authority under S.151,C.P.C. cannot entertain any application to
quash a plaint/appeal which is before either the court of trial or the
court of appeal---Power of High Court under S.151, C.P.C. is not
coextensive with the power of the court below and can be exercised
only where the lis is pending before High Court---courts of trial,
courts of appeal and revisional courts are invested with powers by
specific provision of Cr.P.C to do the said job---Principles---High
Court in view of S.561-A. Cr.P.C. is not subject to limitation and is
empowered to recall or alter its order if some mandatory provisions
of law have been violated---[Irshad Ahmad v. Muhammad Jamil PLD
1994 Lah. 583 dissented from.