IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr. MMO No. 1203 of 2025

Reserved on: 10.12.2025.

Date of Decision: 16.12.2025.

Tej Raj @ Tej Singh ...Petitioner

Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh & others ...Respondents

Coram

Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?¹ No.

For the Petitioners : Mr. R.L. Verma, Advocate.

For the Respondents/State : Mr. Jitender K. Sharma, Additional

Advocate General.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The petitioner has filed the present petition for setting

aside the order dated 27.10.2025, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Karsog, District Mandi, H.P. (learned Trial Court). It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrayed as an accused in a complaint pending before the learned Trial Court. The petitioner could not appear before the learned Trial Court due to

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

unavoidable circumstances. Learned Trial Court issued a proclamation directing the appearance of the petitioner on 02.01.2026. The petitioner was attending the Court till 02.02.2024. He suffered chest pain and could not appear before the Court. The date of the hearing was not communicated to him by his counsel. The petitioner visited Netaji Subhash Chander Bose, Zonal Hospital, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. and was informed that he was suffering from Tuberculosis. The petitioner suffered a fractuure of his left arm and could not visit the Court. The Court issuoed the proclamation requiring the presence of the petitioner. HCence, the petition.

2. I have heard Mr R.L. Vemra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Jitender K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State.

H3. Mr R.L. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner could not appear before the learned Trial Court due to the circumstances beyond his control. He is ready and willing to appear before the learned Trial Court on each and every date of hearing. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the order passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside. He relied upon the judgment passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in Arun Ran vs.

M/s Shiva Electrical Industries and another 2024: HHC:9761 in support of his submission.

4. Mr Jitender K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondents/State, submitted that the petitioner has an alternate remedy of surrendering before the learned Trial Court, and this Court should not exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction vested in it under Section 528 of BNSS. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissued.

5. I have givoen considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar Cand have gone through the records carefully.

6. There is a force in the submission of learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondents/State, that the petitioner has a remedy to surrender before the learned Trial Court and seek an Happropriate order from the learned Trial Court. The jurisdiction vested in the Court under Section 528 of BNSS corresponding to Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is extraordinary in nature and should be exercised sparingly. Such jurisdiction should not be exercised when an alternative remedy is available to the petitioner.

7. It was held in Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, (1977) 4 SCC 551: 1978 SCC (Cri) 10 that inherent power should not be exercised when a specific remedy exists. It was observed:

At the outset, the following principles may be noticed in relation to the exercise of the inherent power of the High Court, which have been followed ordinarily and generally, almost invariably, barring a few exceptions:

“(1) That the power is not to be resHorted to if there is a specific provision in the Code for the redress of the grievance of the aggrieved party;

(2) That it should be exercisedf very sparingly to prevent abuse of process of any Coourt or otherwise to secure the ends of justice;

(3) That it should not be exercised as against the express ba