https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759612 Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC will not be used to restore a withdrawn criminal complaint unless inadvertence is established from the record and the party's conduct supports a genuine mistake. Here, restoration was refused because the surrounding circumstances undermined the plea of accidental withdrawal: settlement-related payments had been made, the claimed outstanding balance did not match the court record, the complainant had not promptly raised the alleged error during mediation, and the recall application was filed after unexplained delay. The later revival of execution proceedings further weakened the claim that the withdrawal was inadvertent. The petition to reopen the complaint therefore failed. en-us Wed, 18 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 05 Oct 2024 08:54:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759612 Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC will not be used to restore a withdrawn criminal complaint unless inadvertence is established from the record and the party's conduct supports a genuine mistake. Here, restoration was refused because the surrounding circumstances undermined the plea of accidental withdrawal: settlement-related payments had been made, the claimed outstanding balance did not match the court record, the complainant had not promptly raised the alleged error during mediation, and the recall application was filed after unexplained delay. The later revival of execution proceedings further weakened the claim that the withdrawal was inadvertent. The petition to reopen the complaint therefore failed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 18 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759612