1. One among the common questions that arises for consideration in the present petitions is as to whether the High Court, exercising its powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is empowered to quash or recall a Non-bailable Warrant when an alternate remedy under Section 70 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers cancellation of the warrant by the court that had issued the warrant.

2. An analogous proposition came to be dealt by me in a recent decision in K. Raghupathy Vs. Commissioner of Police reported in 2017 (2) Lw (Crl.) 177. The order was made on the basis of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the cases of Ramesh Kumari Vs. State (N.C.T. Of Delhi) and others reported in 2006 (1) CTC 666 and Prabhu Chawla Vs. State of Rajasthan and another reported in CDJ 2016 SC 810. The relevant portion of the K. Raghupathy’s case reads as follows:

“.5.For the sake of brevity, Section 482 of the Criminal Code of Procedure, 1973 is extracted:

“Section 482: Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.”

6. The Section begins with a non obstante clause and in view of the inherent powers conferred there in, there cannot be a total ban on the High Courts’ interminable jurisdiction. In other words, the availability of an alternate remedy under the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be an embargo for the High Court to exercise its inherent powers to secure the ends of justice in view of the non obstante clause. This Court is conscious of the fact that the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., must be exercised very sparingly and in the rarest of rare cases and the limitation to exercise this power is self restrained.

7. At the outset, I would like to reiterate the views expressed by my learned Brother Judge in the judgment reported in 2016(5) CTC 577 that there can be no circumvention of the time table prescribed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari’s case (supra) and I am in agreement with the proposition. But, in my considered view, the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Kumari Vs. State (N.C.T. Of Delhi) and others reported in 2006 (1) CTC 666 and Prabhu Chawla Vs. State of Rajasthan and another reported in CDJ 2016 SC 810 are binding on me. In Ramesh Kumari’s case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows:

“3…. We are not convinced by this submission because the sole grievance of the Appellant is that no case has been registered in terms of the mandatory provisions of Section 154 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Genuineness or otherwise of the information can only be considered after registration of the case. Genuineness or credibility of the information is not a condition precedent for registration of a case. We are also clearly of the view that the High Court erred in law in dismissing the petition solely on the ground that the contempt petition was pending and the Appellant had an alternative remedy. The ground of alternative remedy nor pending of the contempt petition would be no substitute in law not to register a case when a citizen makes a complaint of a cognizance offence against the Police Officer.”

8. From the aforesaid judgment, it is comprehensible that the amount of alternate remedy cannot be a bar for issuance of a direction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to register a case when cognizable offence is made out before the police officer. The aforesaid judgment came to be considered by my learned Brother Judge and was distinguished holding that the dictum laid down therein arose from the peculiar facts of that case and hence, the proposition laid down therein cannot be made applicable to the facts of the subject cases...”

3. The aforesaid excerpt is self explanatory and came to passed in the light of the following propositions by