Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC is not barred by alternative remedy where intervention is needed to prevent injustice.

Section 482 CrPC confers wide inherent powers to prevent abuse of process, secure the ends of justice and avoid miscarriage of justice, and the availability of an alternative statutory remedy is not an absolute bar. The complaint's dismissal in default on the basis that a fresh exemption from personal appearance was required was held unsustainable, because the earlier exemption continued until revoked or recalled. Refusing to intervene on that hyper-technical ground was unjustified, and the High Court ought to have exercised inherent jurisdiction to prevent injustice.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in refusing to exercise inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on the ground that an alternative statutory remedy was available, despite the complaint having been dismissed in default on a hyper-technical basis.

Analysis: The inherent power under Section 482 is wide and is meant to prevent abuse of process, secure the ends of justice, and avoid miscarriage of justice. An alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to its exercise. The complaint had been dismissed because the complainant, though earlier exempted from personal appearance, did not seek a fresh exemption, a view that was found to be unsustainable because the exemption order continued until revoked or recalled. Refusal to interfere in such circumstances defeated the object of the provision and resulted in injustice.

Conclusion: The refusal to exercise inherent jurisdiction was unjustified and the High Court ought to have intervened.

Ratio Decidendi: The High Court may exercise inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to prevent miscarriage of justice and secure the ends of justice, and the existence of an alternative remedy does not by itself bar such intervention.

---