Inherent powers cannot bypass the statutory appeal remedy or revive a complaint validly dismissed under Section 256 CrPC.

A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was dismissed for non-appearance under Section 256 CrPC after repeated unattended dates, and that dismissal operated as an acquittal. The High Court noted that revision was not maintainable against such an order because the proper remedy was an appeal under Section 378(4) CrPC with special leave. It also confirmed that inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC cannot be used to bypass an express statutory remedy or to revive proceedings concluded by a lawful acquittal. The request to restore the complaint under Section 482 was therefore rejected, leaving the dismissal and revisional order undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the complaint dismissed for default under Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 could be restored in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and whether revision was maintainable instead of an appeal under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 had remained unattended on several consecutive dates, despite repeated opportunities. The trial court was held to have acted within its authority under Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in dismissing the complaint for non-appearance, which operated as an acquittal. The revisional court was held correct in holding that revision was not maintainable against such an order and that the proper remedy was an appeal under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with special leave. It was further held that inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 cannot be invoked to bypass a specific statutory remedy or to revive proceedings concluded by a lawful acquittal.

Conclusion: The request to restore the complaint through Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was rejected, and the applicant was held bound to the statutory appellate remedy.

Final Conclusion: The proceedings ended in favour of the accused, with the complaint dismissal and the revisional order left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Inherent jurisdiction cannot be used to circumvent an express statutory appellate remedy or to reopen a complaint validly dismissed under Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as such dismissal amounts to an acquittal.

---