The court ruled that inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS cannot override established procedural norms in criminal proceedings, particularly in serious cases like honour killings.

ORDER :

Prologue:

Justice in this land has long been measured not by the status of the accused, but by the depth of the wrong and the voice of the aggrieved. Tamil tradition recalls the legendary reign of Manu Neethi Cholan, who, upon hearing the cry of a voiceless cow whose calf was killed under his son’s chariot, chose to subject his own son to the rigour of law, affirming that justice admits no exception, even for one’s own kin. Centuries later, the constitutional promise of equality before law enshrined in Article 14, and the protection of life and dignity under Article 21, continue to echo that timeless principle. Yet, incidents of honour killing, driven by caste prejudice and misplaced notions of familial pride, remind us that the journey from legend to lived reality remains unfinished.

2. The present case, arising from the brutal killing of a young engineer belonging to a Scheduled Caste community, calls upon the justice delivery system to remain steadfast to that ancient yet enduring mandate that law must stand taller than lineage, office, or influence, and that the cry of a grieving mother must receive the same attentive response as the bell of justice once did in the Court of Manu Neethi Cholan.

3. The petition is projected as a “direction petition” invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court, complaining that after filing of the final report and taking the case on file as S.C.No.120 of 2025, the learned Trial Judge issued a Non-Bailable Warrant against the petitioner (A3) “without first issuing summons”. The petitioner, while asserting that she has no overt act and that she was not arrested during investigation, seeks a mandamus-like direction to the Sessions Court to entertain and decide her recall petition immediately upon surrender.

4. The respondent-State and the victim-side resist the petition primarily (i) on maintainability, contending that what is sought is nothing but an indirect challenge to the judicial act of issuance of warrant, without even impleading/challenging that order in the manner known to law, (ii) that the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy before the very same Court which issued the warrant and (iii) that a direction under Section 528 BNSS cannot be used as a substitute for statutory procedure.

5. This Court, therefore, confines itself to the limited question, whether the inherent power under Section 528 BNSS should be exercised to issue a direction of the kind sought, in the factual setting of a heinous murder case coupled with allegations under the SC/ST (PoA) Act.

Case of the prosecution:

6. The prosecution case arises out of Crime No.1 of 2025, registered for offences under Sections 296 (b), 103(1) and 49 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 , read with Sections 3 (1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (as amended).

7. The gravamen of the accusation is that the deceased, stated to belong to a Scheduled Caste, was brutally murdered in broad daylight, and that the occurrence is projected as an “honour killing” arising from an inter-caste relationship. The prosecution alleges a conspiracy and facilitation by family members, including the petitioner (A3), who is stated to be a police officer, and the mother of A1.

8. Investigation having been completed, a final report has been filed and the case has been taken on file as S.C.No.120 of 2025 on the file of the learned II Additional District Court, Tirunelveli. It is in that proceeding that the NBW came to be issued.

Case of the petitioner / grounds urged:

9.