RANJIT SARKARversusRAVI GANESH BHARDWAJ AND OTHERS

                 [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1448 : 2025 INSC 415

                          Ranjit Sarkar
                                v.
                 Ravi Ganesh Bhardwaj and Others
                    (Criminal Appeal No. 1593 of 2025)
                                17 March 2025
                [Dipankar Datta* and Manmohan, JJ.]


                           Issue for Consideration
       Whether in the instant case, the Judicial Magistrate in terms of
       s.256, Cr.PC was justified in dismissing the complaint for default
       vide order dated 16.04.2021.

                                  Headnotes†
       Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.256 – Appellant lodged a
       complaint alleging offence u/s.304-A of IPC – Judicial Magistrate
       issued process – Respondent arrayed as accused therein
       filed an application u/s. 482 Cr.PC (CRR No. 2327 of 2018)
       and sought quashing of summons – The High Court stayed
       proceedings – Owing to outbreak of COVID, there was national
       lockdown – Despite the aforesaid stay, Judicial Magistrate
       called the complaint case on 06.01.2021 and dismissed the
       complaint for default vide order dated 16.04.2021 – In Revision,
       the Sessions Judge held that appellant had sufficient cause
       for not presenting himself and set aside the orders dated
       06.01.2021 and 16.04.2021 – Aggrieved, the respondents filed
       fresh application u/s.482 Cr.PC (CRR No. 359 of 2023) – The
       High Court set aside the revisional order – Correctness:
       Held: From the tenor of the order dated 06.01.2021, it is clear
       that 16.04.2021 was not the day appointed for appearance of the
       respondents – It was the date on which the appellant was required
       to show cause – Had COVID restrictions not been in place and in
       otherwise normal circumstances, if the appellant remained absent
       on the date appointed for appearance of the respondents, without
       showing sufficient cause, the Judicial Magistrate in terms of s.256,
       Cr.PC would have been justified in recording an order of acquittal
       of the respondents had they been present unless, for some reason,


* Author
[2025] 3 S.C.R.                                                               1449

           Ranjit Sarkar v. Ravi Ganesh Bhardwaj and Others


     he intended to adjourn the hearing to some other day – However,
     the jurisdictional facts for recording an acquittal u/s.256, Cr.PC were
     not satisfied in the present case, firstly, because it was not the
     appointed day for appearance of the respondents and secondly, they
     were also not present – Owing to the absence of the appellant and
     owing to his omission to respond to the show-cause, the Judicial
     Magistrate could, at best, be justified in dismissing the complaint
     for default, which he did but which he could not have done having
     regard to the facts of the notification dated 27.11.2020 (SOP for
     functioning of Court during COVID pandemic) being in force on
     16.04.2021 and operation of the stay order granted by the High
     Court on 18.09.2018 – The Sessions Judge had assigned sufficient
     reason why the complaint should not have been dismissed based
     on correct interpretation of s.256 Cr.PC. [Paras 20, 21]

     Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.256 – Invoking of:
     Held: What assumes importance for invoking s.256, Cr.PC is the
     purpose for which the case is fixed – If the date is not appointed
     for appearance of the accused but for some other purpose, like
     in the present case, acquittal of the accused does not necessarily
     follow as the logical result of absence of the complainant – Also,
     the words “on any day subsequent thereto” must be understood
     in reference to the words preceding, namely, “the day appointed
     for the appearance of the accused”. [Para 19]

                                 List of Acts
     Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

                              List of Keywords
     Section 256 of Cr.PC; Appearance of accused; Acquittal of
     accused; Absence of complainant; Day appointed for appearance;
     Non-appearance of complainant; Death of complainant.

                             Case Arising From
     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
     1593 of 2025
     From the Judgment and Order dated 15.07.2024 of the High Court
     at Calcutta in CRR No. 359 of 2023
1450                                                         [2025] 3 S.C.R.

                                Supreme Court Reports


                                Appearances for Parties
      Advs. for the Respondents:
      Rana Mukherjee, Sr. Adv., Partha Sil, Ms. Oindrilla Sen, Ms. Sayani
      Bhattacharya, Samarth Mohanty, Srijit Datta.
      Petitioner-in-person.

                    Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                      Judgment

      Dipankar Datta, J.

1.    Leave granted.
2.    This appeal, inter alia, tasks us to interpret Section 256 of the Code
      of Criminal Procedure, 19731.
3.    The appellant’s son, holder of a degree of Doctor of Philosophy,
      died relatively young at the age of 36 years. Such unfortunate death
      was preceded by a traumatic fall that he had from a staircase on
      10th July, 2014. The appellant had his son immediately admitted to
      a private hospital at Dum Dum, Kolkata. However, according to the
      appellant, it was due to the criminal medical negligence of the hospital
      and the doctors attending on his son that he could not survive the
      hemorrhage caused by such fall.
4.    Apart from proceedings initiated elsewhere, the appellant lodged a
      complaint under Section 200, Cr. PC before the 4th Court of Judicial
      Magistrate, Barrackpore, North 24 Parganas, Kolkata2 alleging offence
      committed under Section 304-A, Indian penal Code, 18603. The
      Judicial Magistrate upon recording the statement of the appellant on
      oath, issued process under Section 204(1), Cr. PC against, inter alia,
      the respondents for alleged commission of offence under Section
      304A, Indian Penal Code, 1860.
5.    The respondents were arrayed as some of the accused in the
      complaint. Upon service of summons on them, the respondents


1    Cr. PC
2    Complaint Case No.2/2017
3    IPC
[2025] 3 S.C.R.                                                             1451

              Ranjit Sarkar v. Ravi Ganesh Bhardwaj and Others


      approached the High Court at Calcutta 4 by presenting an
      application under Section 482 of the Cr. PC5 seeking quashing
      of such summons. Upon hearing the petition, a learned Judge of
      the High Court stayed proceedings before the Judicial Magistrate
      vide order dated 18th September, 2018. Such order was extended
      from time to time.
6.    In the third week of March, 2020, national lockdown was clamped
      owing to outbreak of Covid. The Standard Operating Procedure6 for
      functioning of courts in West Bengal during the pandemic, circulated
      vide notification dated 27th November, 2020 of the Registrar General
      of the High Court, inter alia, contained the following stipulation:
             “12. Ordinarily, matters should not be dismissed for default,
             both in the High Court and in the Subordinate Courts,
             except upon giving cogent reasons recording the deliberate
             avoidance or recalcitrance of the party or parties absent.
             Similarly, extreme caution should be exercised before
             passing any ex parte order”.
7.    Despite proceedings of the complaint having been stayed by the
      High Court and despite the subsistence of the SoP, duly notified, the
      Judicial Magistrate called the complaint case on 6th January, 2021.
      Despite repeated calls, the appellant had remained absent. He was
      not represented by his advocate either. Accordingly, the Judicial
      Magistrate required the appellant to show-cause why the complaint
      shall not be dismissed and, accordingly, fixed 16th April, 2021 for
      his response.
8.    At the relevant time, the pandemic was still taking lives of old and
      young alike. The appellant, a septuagenarian, was attacked by the
      Covid virus and was under medical treatment owing to which he
      had not risked his life by appearing before the Judicial Magistrate.
      Thus, he was again found absent on 16th April, 2021. No steps
      having been taken by the appellant pursuant to the order dated 6th
      January, 2021, the Judicial Magistrate dismissed the complaint for
      default vide order dated 16th April, 2021.



4    High Court
5    CRR No. 2327 of 2018
6    SoP
1452                                                           [2025] 3 S.C.R.

                                  Supreme Court Reports


9.    CRR No. 2327 of 2018 was thereafter listed on 9th September, 2021
      before another learned Judge of the High Court. The appellant, though
      impleaded as an opposite party therein, was once again not present.
      The learned Judge, seized of the same, noted that the complaint
      had been dismissed for default by the Judicial Magistrate vide order
      dated 16th April, 2021, yet, proceeded to pass the following order:
              “ *** So far as the provision of Criminal Procedure Code
              is concerned, the only section which is applicable will
              be Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in
              cases where the complainant is absent and the learned
              Magistrate is not willing to proceed with the case. The
              proper interpretation of application of the section obviously
              will be an order of acquittal in favour of the accused for
              non-appearance of the complainant.
              In view of the present position of the complaint case, no
              order is required to be passed in the revisional application
              being CRR 2327 of 2018.
              As such, the same is disposed of. Interim order, if any, is
              hereby vacated.”
10. In the meanwhile, however, the appellant had moved the 2nd Court
    of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Barrackpore, in
    revision7, questioning the orders of the Judicial Magistrate dated
    6th January, 2021 and 16th April, 2021. Upon hearing the parties,
    the Sessions Judge proceeded to overrule the objection of the
    respondents that the revision was not maintainable and held that the
    appellant having sufficient cause for not presenting himself, he had
    set up a case for interference with the order dismissing the complaint
    for default. The Sessions Judge further held that the appellant had
    pursued the proper course of action by applying for revision against
    the order dated 16th April, 2021. It was also noted, having regard
    to the provisions contained in Section 256, Cr. PC, that since the
    respondents too were not present on 16th April, 2021, the Judicial
    Magistrate had not recorded an order of acquittal which could have
    been passed had such date been appointed for their appearance.
    The criminal revision was, accordingly, allowed on contest. The


7    Criminal Revision 262/2021
[2025] 3 S.C.R.                                                          1453

            Ranjit Sarkar v. Ravi Ganesh Bhardwaj and Others


     impugned orders dated 6 th January, 2021 and 16 th April, 2021
     passed on Complaint Case No. 2 of 2017 were set aside, with the
     result that the said case was restored to its file and number. The
     parties were directed to appear before the Judicial Magistrate on
     23rd December, 2022.
11. The revisional order dated 19th November, 2022 was next challenged
    by the respondents before the High Court in a fresh application under
    Section 482, Cr. PC8. By an order dated 15th July, 2024, another
    learned Judge of the High Court allowed the same. The revisional
    order was set aside with the result that the complaint stood closed.
    Relevant passages from the said order dated 15th July, 2024 of the
    learned Judge read as follows:
            “ ***
            By an order passed on April 16, 2021 in C. Case No.
            02 of 2017, the learned Judicial Magistrate, 4th Court,
            Barrackpore dismissed the complaint case for default
            since the complainant took no steps on the said date was
            found absent on repeated calls despite issuance of show
            cause upon him vide an order dated January 06, 2021.
            The complainant/private opposite party came up before
            this Court in a revisional application being CRR No. 2327
            of 2018 challenging the said order and by an order passed
            on September 09, 2021, this Court observed as follows: -
            ‘The proper interpretation of application of the section
            obviously will be an order of acquittal in favour of the
            accused for non-appearance of the complainant.’
            This Court disposed of the revisional application on
            such score. Subsequently, orders of the learned Judicial
            Magistrate dated January 06, 2021 and April 06, 2021
            were assailed before the learned Additional District and
            Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Barrackpore by the complainant/
            opposite party and by the order impugned dated November
            19, 2022, the learned Sessions Judge allowed the
            revisional application upon setting aside the orders of the
            learned Magistrate with an observation that such order of


8   CRR No. 359 of 2023
1454                                                     [2025] 3 S.C.R.

                      Supreme Court Reports


        acquittal and dismissal can only be passed on the date or
        dates when those dates are fixed for appearance of the
        accused and hearing of any matter in the complaint case.
        Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after the
        observation made by this Court, the learned Sessions
        Judge had no authority to make any observation on the
        said issue in the revisional application filed before him and
        as such, the judgment needs to be quashed.
        ***
        The primary issue which is required to be taken into
        consideration in the present application is whether after
        an observation made by this Court, the learned Sessions
        Judge had any authority to deal with the same issue and
        make any observation contrary to that of this Court.
        This Court, vide an order passed on September 09, 2021,
        clearly observed that in view of Section 256 of the Code
        of Criminal Procedure, where the complainant is absent,
        the proper interpretation of the application of the section
        would be an order of acquittal in favour of the accused. In
        other words, this Court made a clear observation that the
        case ought not to have been dismissed for default but an
        order of acquittal in favour of the accused ought to have
        been made. The revisional application was disposed of
        since no order was required to be passed in view of the
        position of the complaint case.
        In view of the above, this Court is inclined to hold that
        the learned District and Sessions Judge, 2 nd Court,
        Barrackpore, in dealing with the merits of the order which
        was already dealt with by this Court in observing that the
        order should be read/interpreted as an order of acquittal
        in favour of the accused, has in fact sat in appeal over the
        order of this Court which is not enjoined in law. A decision
        arrived at by the Court could not have been reconsidered
        by the learned Judge.
        *** ”
                                               (emphasis supplied)
[2025] 3 S.C.R.                                                      1455

           Ranjit Sarkar v. Ravi Ganesh Bhardwaj and Others


12. The said order dated 15th July, 2024 is questioned by the appellant
    in this appeal.
13. We have heard the appellant in person and Mr. Mukherjee, learned
    senior counsel appearing for the respondents (being the petitioners
    before the High Court).
14. There can be and, in fact, exists no doubt that the High Court in
    passing the impugned order dated 15th July, 2024 has occasioned a
    grave failure of justice.
15. The impugned order of the learned Judge reveals a narrow focus
    stemming from a one-track mind. Why the appellant could not
    appear before the Judicial Magistrate on 6th January, 2021 and 16th
    April, 2021 and whether the Judicial Magistrate could have called
    the complaint case for ascertaining whether cause was shown, had
    not been considered at all. First of all, Covid restrictions being in
    place and in terms of the SoP framed by the High Court, the Judicial
    Magistrate could not have dismissed the complaint for default on 16th
    April, 2021 without recording a satisfaction that either the appellant
    was deliberately avoiding participation in the proceedings or that his
    recalcitrance was such, which left the Judicial Magistrate with no
    other option but to dismiss the complaint for default. Secondly, the
    proceedings before the Judicial Magistrate having been stayed by the
    High Court by interim orders passed from time to time, the Judicial
    Magistrate lacked the jurisdiction to pass any order on the complaint
    case till such time the stay was lifted. Since the Judicial Magistrate
    could not have dismissed the complaint for default on 16th April, 2021
    in view of the above-referred factors, by reason of interference with
    the revisional order of the Sessions Judge under challenge in CRR
    No. 359 of 2023, the learned Judge has validated such illegal order of
    dismissal dated 16th April, 2021 resulting in the appellant’s complaint
    being closed without just reason. This is the first ground on which
    we propose to interfere with the impugned order.
16. Besides that, the learned Judge proceeded on a total misconception of
    the factual position. Bare perusal of the impugned order, as extracted,
    would reveal that the learned Judge was anchored in the belief that it
    was the appellant who had approached the High Court by filing CRR
    No. 2327 of 2018. As noticed, CRR No. 2327 of 2018 was at the
    instance of the respondents. The extent of influence that such factual
    misconception had on the learned Judge’s judicial mind, adversely
1456                                                         [2025] 3 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


     affecting the interest of the appellant, is self-evident. The entire focus
     seems to have shifted to answer what the learned Judge felt was
     “the primary issue”, that is, whether the Sessions Judge could have
     dealt with the issue (which had earlier been dealt with by the High
     Court while disposing of CRR No. 2327 of 2018) and interfere, in
     exercise of revisional powers, taking a view contrary to that taken by
     the High Court on the appellant’s petition. Viewed in the conspectus
     of the issues arising for decision before the High Court, the error of
     understanding the facts is unacceptable.
17. The next error that the learned Judge committed arises from a failure
    to consider the law in the proper perspective as well as the weight
    of the observation made by the High Court in the earlier order dated
    9th September, 2021. The complaint case was listed on 16th April,
    2021 before the Judicial Magistrate for a limited purpose, that is,
    cause to be shown by the appellant as to why for his absence the
    complaint should not be dismissed for default. On that date, even
    the respondents were absent. Overlooking these, the learned Judge
    placed undue reliance on the order dated 9th September, 2021 as
    if the observation contained therein on interpretation of Section
    256, Cr. PC was the final word and binding on all notwithstanding
    the remedies that law provided to the appellant to challenge the
    order of dismissal for default. The law permitted the appellant to
    question the order of dismissal dated 16th April, 2021, which he did
    question. We are minded to observe, in the light of the subsequent
    judicial proceedings and orders passed therein, that the learned
    Judge (who had the occasion to consider CRR No. 2327 of 2018)
    would have done better if CRR No. 2327 of 2018 were disposed of
    merely recording that nothing survived for decision on the challenge
    to the summons in view of dismissal of the complaint for default;
    instead, the learned Judge went on to make an observation with
    regard to what would be the proper interpretation of Section 256,
    Cr. PC qua the outcome of the complaint case in favour of the
    accused, arising out of non-appearance of the complainant which,
    apart from being wholly unwarranted, has resulted in unnecessary
    proceedings which were wholly avoidable. Even otherwise, such
    observation was patently incorrect since bare reading of Section
    256, Cr. PC, having regard to the attending facts and circumstances,
    did not entail an acquittal for the respondents, as we presently
    propose to demonstrate. Significantly, the learned Judge seized of
    CRR No. 359 of 2023 interfered with the impugned revisional order
[2025] 3 S.C.R.                                                           1457

           Ranjit Sarkar v. Ravi Ganesh Bhardwaj and Others


     merely because of such previous observation without any proper
     application of mind.
18. Chapter XX of the Cr. PC is titled Trial of Summons-Cases by
    Magistrates. It has 8 (eight) sections from Section 251 to 259.
    Section 254 lays down the procedure to be followed if conviction is
    not recorded in terms of Sections 252 and 253. An acquittal can be
    recorded by a magistrate under Section 255, Cr. PC, if considering
    the evidence, it is found that the accused is not guilty. An acquittal
    can also be recorded by the magistrate under Section 256, Cr. PC,
    without considering the evidence on record, in the stated situations.
    Section 256 of the Cr. PC reads as follows:
           “256. Non-appearance or death of complainant-(1) If the
           summons has been issued on complaint, and on the day
           appointed for the appearance of the accused, or any day
           subsequent thereto to which the hearing may be adjourned,
           the complainant does not appear, the Magistrate shall,
           notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained, acquit
           the accused, unless for some reason he thinks it proper to
           adjourn the hearing of the case to some other day:
           Provided that where the complainant is represented by a
           pleader or by the officer conducting the prosecution or where
           the Magistrate is of opinion that the personal attendance
           of the complainant is not necessary, the Magistrate may
           dispense with his attendance and proceed with the case.
           (2) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall, so far as may
           be, apply also to cases where the non-appearance of the
           complainant is due to his death”.
19. What, therefore, assumes importance for invoking Section 256,
    Cr. PC is the purpose for which the case is fixed. If the date is not
    appointed for appearance of the accused but for some other purpose,
    like in the present case, acquittal of the accused does not necessarily
    follow as the logical result of absence of the complainant. Also,
    the words “on any day subsequent thereto” must be understood in
    reference to the words preceding, namely, “the day appointed for
    the appearance of the accused”. Say, for instance, if a date is fixed
    by the magistrate for bringing an order from a superior court or for
    showing cause why an order of dismissal should not be passed for
    continuous absence of the complainant or for producing any material,
1458                                                        [2025] 3 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


     which is not intrinsically connected with any step towards progress of
     the lis, and the complainant is found to be absent, a dismissal of the
     complaint can be ordered but the provision for acquitting the accused
     may not be attracted unless it happens to be the date appointed for
     appearance of the accused and they do appear personally or through
     an advocate; also, without the magistrate recording a clear acquittal
     along with the order of dismissal of the complaint, acquittal need not
     be read into every such order of dismissal of a complaint owing to
     absence of the complainant.
20. From the tenor of the order dated 6th January, 2021, it is clear that
    16th April, 2021 was not the day appointed for appearance of the
    respondents. It was the date on which the appellant was required
    to show cause. Had Covid restrictions not been in place and in
    otherwise normal circumstances, if the appellant remained absent
    on the date appointed for appearance of the respondents, without
    showing sufficient cause, the Judicial Magistrate in terms of Section
    256, Cr. PC would have been justified in recording an order of acquittal
    of the respondents had they been present unless, for some reason,
    he intended to adjourn the hearing to some other day. However, the
    jurisdictional facts for recording an acquittal under Section 256, Cr.
    PC were not satisfied in the present case, firstly, because it was not
    the appointed day for appearance of the respondents and secondly,
    they were also not present. Owing to the absence of the appellant
    and owing to his omission to respond to the show-cause, the Judicial
    Magistrate could, at best, be justified in dismissing the complaint for
    default, which he did but which he could not have done having regard
    to the facts of the notification dated 27th November, 2020 being in force
    on 16th April, 2021 and operation of the stay order granted by the High
    Court on 18th September, 2018, since extended from time to time.
21. The observation made by the learned Judge seized of CRR No.
    2327 of 2018 based on his interpretation of Section 256, Cr. PC
    being flawed, the other learned Judge ought not to have made such
    flawed observation as the main plank for allowing CRR No. 359 of
    2023. It was absolutely incorrect on the part of the learned Judge
    to hold that the Sessions Judge was sitting in appeal over the order
    of the High Court. The Sessions Judge had duly held the revision
    petition to be maintainable and had assigned sufficient reason why
    the complaint should not have been dismissed based on a correct
    interpretation of Section 256, Cr. PC.
[2025] 3 S.C.R.                                                      1459

              Ranjit Sarkar v. Ravi Ganesh Bhardwaj and Others


22. Even otherwise, both the learned Judges ought to have realized that
    the appellant did have multiple remedies available in law to pursue
    for laying a challenge to the order dated 16th April, 2021 and which,
    in fact, he did pursue as the correct course of action; and, indeed,
    succeeded in restoration of his complaint. Interference, therefore,
    was not called for.
23. For the reasons aforesaid, we hold the impugned order dated
    15th July, 2024 allowing CRR No. 359 of 2023 to be unsustainable
    in law. Consequently, it is set aside. As a sequitur, Complaint Case
    No. 2 of 2017 shall stand revived on the file of the Judicial Magistrate
    and be restored to its original file and number.
24. Considering the fact that CRR No. 2327 of 2018 had been disposed
    of by the order dated 9th September, 2021 in view of dismissal of
    the complaint case for default, we also set aside the order dated 9th
    September, 2021 of disposal of CRR No. 2327 of 2018 in exercise of
    power conferred by Article 142 of the Constitution of India and revive
    the same by restoring it on the file of the High Court.
25. However, the High Court shall first decide CRR No. 2327 of 2018, as
    early as possible, preferably within six months from date of receipt
    of a copy of this order. The parties are directed to appear before the
    roster bench of the High Court on 17th April, 2025, whereafter the
    proceedings may be taken to its logical conclusion in accordance with
    law. Depending on the result of CRR No. 2327 of 2018, the complaint
    case shall also be taken to its logical conclusion in accordance with
    law, as early as possible.
26. The appeal stands allowed to the extent mentioned above. Pending
    application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
27. We clarify not having examined the rival contentions on its merits.
28. Registry is directed to communicate this order to the Registrar General
    of the High Court, forthwith, for facilitating early disposal of CRR No.
    2327 of 2018.

     Result of the case: Appeal allowed.



     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan