Direction given to approach Court below for redressal for grievance.

S.M. Ali Mohamed, J.

In this batch of petitions, a common question of law arises, viz., whether the petition under Sec. 482, Crl.P.C. is maintainable, in view of the specific provision under Sec. 70 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners in the respective criminal original petitions were enlarged on bail, but failed to appear before the concerned Magistrates/trial courts and the concerned Magistrates/trial courts have issued non-bailable warrants to compel the presence of the petitioners before the court for trial or enquiry. The petitioners have filed these criminal original petitions, under Sec.482, Crl.P.C. for recall or cancellation of the non-bailable warrant issued by the Magistrates/trial courts giving stereo-typed reasons for non-appearance before the courts, viz., they were sick or down with jaundice or they were held in elsewhere due to alleged reasons beyond their control.

2. The point for consideration is whether this Court has power under Sec. 482, Crl.P.C. to recall or cancel non-bailable warrant and direct the petitioners to present before the Magistrate/trial courts on a particular date in the teeth of specific provision containing in Sec. 70(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

3. Mr. Karpagavinayagam, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner in Crl.O.P. No. 8531 of 1994, vehemently contended that inherent powers of the High Court given under Sec. 482, Crl.P.C. is wide and notwithstanding the specific provisions given under Sec. 70(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, this Court has power to recall or cancel the non-bailable warrant issued by the courts below and direct the accused persons to present themselves before the Magistrates trial courts. In this connection, the learned counsel submitted that power under Sec. 482, Crl.P.C. has been exercised by the High Courts even when there are specific provisions in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. He further submitted that even if there is no provisions at all in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, various High Courts have exercised the power under Sec. 482, Crl.P.C. to render justice. He further submitted after referring to various rulings of the Supreme Court that power under Sec. 482, Crl.P.C. is wide and the Supreme Court in various decisions has only imposed certain conditions for the guidance of the High Court for the exercise of the power and the same are only illustrative and not exhaustive. He further submitted that the said restrictions are self-imposed by the court. In support of the above contentions, learned counsel cited the following rulings.

(a) In Raj Kapoor v. State (Delhi Administration), A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 258, the Supreme Court observed as follows:

"The first question is as to whether the inherent power of the High Court under Sec. 482 stands repelled when the revisional power under Sec. 397 overlaps. The opening words of Sec. 482 contradict this contention because nothing in the Code, not even Sec. 397 can affect the amplitude of the inherent power preserved in so many terms by the language of Sec. 482. ... ... ...

In short, there is no total ban on the exercise of inherent power where abuse of the process of the court or other extraordinary situation excites the court’s jurisdiction. The limitation is self-restraint, nothing more. The policy of the law is clear that interlocutory orders pure and simple, should not be taken up to the High Court resulting in unnecessary litigation and delay. At the other extreme, final orders are clearly capable of being considered in exercise of inherent power, if glaring injustice stares the court in the face.

... ... ...

The answer is obvious that the bar will not operate to prevent the abuse of the process of the court and/or to secure the ends of justice. The label of the petition filed by an aggrieved party is immaterial. The High Court can examine the matter in an appropriate case under its inherent powers."

(b) In V.C. Shukla v. State Through C.B.I., A.I.R. 1980 S. C.