Restoration as a restorative remedy under supervisory criminal jurisdiction

recognizes that the dismissal of a complaint for default often places the complainant in an untenable predicament because the magistrate typically lacks the power to review or recall their own final orders in criminal proceedings. Under such statutory constraints, the complainant is compelled to invoke the revisional jurisdiction under Section 397/401 or the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the High Court. When such remedies are pursued, superior courts must adopt a remedial and constructive outlook rather than endorsing the finality of an unadjudicated dismissal. Sustaining a dismissal where a plausible explanation exists for the non-appearance amounts to an abdication of supervisory duty, making it imperative for appellate forums to reverse such non-interference and reinstate the complaint on the trial court's docket. (Yatendra Singh Vs State of U.P. & Another | 2026 INSC 109)