Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC cannot bypass the statutory remedy for cancellation of a warrant.

The High Court's inherent power under Section 482 CrPC is wide but must be used sparingly and only to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice. Where Section 70(2) CrPC provides a specific mechanism for cancellation of a warrant by the issuing court, that statutory remedy should ordinarily be pursued first. Direct recourse to Section 482 should not replace the procedure laid down in the Code, except in exceptional cases. The result is that a petition under Section 482 for simple recall or cancellation of a non-bailable warrant is not maintainable when relief remains available before the issuing court.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court could invoke its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to recall or cancel a non-bailable warrant issued by the Magistrate or trial court, notwithstanding the specific remedy provided under Section 70(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The judgment reviewed the scope of inherent jurisdiction and the settled principle that such power is wide but must be exercised sparingly and with self-imposed restraint. It recognised that the inherent power is preserved to prevent abuse of process and to secure the ends of justice, yet ordinarily it should not be used where the Code itself provides a specific remedy. Section 70(2) expressly provides that a warrant remains in force until cancelled by the court that issued it or until executed. The judgment held that, in such matters, the proper course is to approach the issuing court for cancellation of the warrant, and that direct recourse to Section 482 should not become a substitute for the statutory procedure.

Conclusion: The petitioners could not maintain a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for simpliciter recall or cancellation of the non-bailable warrant when a specific remedy under Section 70(2) was available before the issuing court.

Final Conclusion: The inherent jurisdiction of the High Court was affirmed as existing in principle, but its exercise was declined in these matters in deference to the specific statutory remedy, and the petitions were dismissed with directions to seek relief before the court below.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the Code provides a specific remedy for cancellation of a warrant, the High Court should not ordinarily invoke inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 to bypass that remedy, save in exceptional cases where intervention is necessary to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice.

---