CASE ANALYSIS- RANJIT SARKAR V. RAVI GANESH BHARDWAJ & ORS.

Citation	25 Live Law (SC) 369
Date	17 March, 2025
Court Name	Supreme Court of India
Plaintiff/ Appellant/ Petitioner	Ranjit Sarkar (Appellant)
Defendant/ Respondent	Ravi Ganesh Bhardwaj and Others (Respondents)
Bench	Dipankar Datta

FACTS OF THE CASE

1. On 10 July 2014, the son of the appellant, aged 36 years, met with a traumatic fall from a staircase and was hospitalized in a private hospital at Dum Dum, Kolkata; he died due to hemorrhage caused by criminal medical negligence on the part of the hospital and doctors.
2. The appellant had filed a criminal complaint under Section 200 CrPC, for an offence under Section 204A, IPC: a summons was issued under Section 204 (1), CrPC by the Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore.
3. The accused secured a stay of all subsequent proceedings from Kolkata (Calcutta) High Court under Section 482, CrPC, dated 18 September 2018.
4. Notwithstanding the existing stay and a November 2020 SOP preventing default dismissals absent cogent reasons, the Magistrate adjourned the case on 6 January 2021. The appellant (now COVID‑positive) failed to appear and was ordered to show cause on 16 April 2021; his second default resulted in the dismissal of the complaint for default.
5. In November 2022, a Criminal Revision prevailed before the Sessions Judge, who set aside January and April 2021 orders and reinstated the complaint file, putting it up for hearing on 23 December 2022.
6. On 15 July 2024, Kolkata (Calcutta) High Court quashed the Sessions Judge’s revision and finally shut down the complaint, ruling that non-appearance of the complainant attracted acquittal under Section 256, CrPC.

ISSUES OF THE CASE

1. Whether the default non-appearance of the complainant at a procedural (show-cause) hearing—even when the date fixed is not for the appearance of the accused—necessarily requires acquittal of the accused under Section 256, CrPC.
2. Whether the Magistrate legally rejected the complaint for default on 16 April 2021 because of (a) the then prevailing stay order of the Calcutta High Court under Section 482, CrPC, and (b) the November 2020 pandemic‑era SOP mandating courts to record “cogent reasons” (or findings of “deliberate avoidance”) before any ex parte rejection.

JUDGMENT

1. The Court held that acquittal under Section 256 is invoked only if (i) the date fixed is “for the appearance of the accused” (or any adjourned hearing thereof) and (ii) the complainant alone is absent on that date. Procedural or interlocutory dates (e.g., show‑cause hearings) do not meet Section 256 automatic‑acquittal requirements.
2. The April 16, 2021, dismissal was quashed because:

The Magistrate did not record any conclusion of “deliberate avoidance,” mandated by the November 2020 pandemic‑era SOP prohibiting default dismissals in the absence of cogent reasons. The dismissal was issued in the face of a subsisting stay order of Kolkata (Calcutta) High Court under Section 482, CrPC, which ousted the Magistrate’s district.

3. The appeal was partially allowed: The July 15, 2024, the order of the High Court quashing the Sessions Judge’s Criminal Revision stood aside.

• The order of the Sessions Judge’s November 2022 revision stood reinstated.
• The initial complaint (C.C. No. 2/2017) was filed before the Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore.
• Kolkata (Calcutta) High Court was ordered to rule on the outstanding Section 482 petition (CRR No. 2327/2018) by April 17, 2025, after which the Magistrate’s proceedings shall be finalized “as early as possible.”

REASONING

1. The expression “date fixed for the appearance of the accused” must be understood in its natural sense; interlocutory proceedings (e.g., show‑cause hearings) are not “dates of appearance” and therefore do not accede to acquittal by mere absence of the complainant.
2. Reading Section 256 to cover all procedural defaults would result in patent absurdities, allowing the accused to escape trial on technical grounds; the provision’s limited application maintains the balance between accused rights and complainant responsibility.
3. The pandemic‑era SOP in November 2020 mandated that courts note certain conclusions of “cogent reasons” or “deliberate avoidance” before default dismissal; failure to note any such conclusion makes a default dismissal illegal.
4. As soon as the High Court had issued a Section 482 stay, the Magistrate had ceased to possess authority to act; any ex parte action during that time was ultra Vires and void.
5. Courts need to be cautious in using powers of summary dismissal, especially in exceptional situations (e.g., public‑health crises), and ought to prefer the preservation of parties’ substantive rights over procedural efficiency.

References

• Case Law
  Ranjit Sarkar v. Ravi Ganesh Bhardwaj & Ors., (2025) SCC OnLine SC 369; 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 369 
• Statutes
  Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, §§ 200, 204(1), 256, 482
  Indian Penal Code, 1860, § 304A
• Court Orders & SOP
  Calcutta High Court stay order, C.R.R. No. 2327/2018 (18 Sept. 2018)
  Supreme Court “Pandemic‑Era” SOP on Default Dismissals (Nov. 2020)
  Sessions Judge, Criminal Revision No. ___/2022 (Nov. 2022)
  Calcutta High Court quashed order, CRR No. 2327/2018 (15 July 2024) 
• Supreme Court Judgment
  Supreme Court of India, Ranjit Sarkar v. Ravi Ganesh Bhardwaj & Ors., Judgment (17 Mar. 2025)

Written by Sunakshi College: GLA University, Mathura and an intern under Legal Vidhiya

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is personal.