Inherent jurisdiction can restore a complaint dismissed for default where refusal would defeat the ends of justice.

A complaint dismissed for non-prosecution may be restored under the High Court's inherent jurisdiction where the dismissal is technical and refusal to interfere would cause miscarriage of justice. The availability of an alternative remedy does not, by itself, bar exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure when such intervention is needed to secure the ends of justice. On those facts, the complaint was restored on terms and the matter was returned to the stage at which it had been dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the complaint dismissed for non-prosecution could be restored in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 despite the availability of an alternative remedy.

Analysis: The dismissal of the complaint was on a technical ground for non-prosecution, and the refusal to restore it would result in miscarriage of justice. Availability of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to the exercise of inherent jurisdiction when such exercise is necessary to secure the ends of justice. In the circumstances, the complaint could be restored on terms, with the matter being returned to the stage at which it had been dismissed.

Conclusion: The complaint was restored and the petition was allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: Inherent jurisdiction may be exercised to restore a complaint dismissed on a technical or default ground where refusal to interfere would defeat the ends of justice, and the existence of an alternative remedy does not by itself bar such relief.

---