CASE ANALYSIS –   RANJIT SARKAR V. RAVI GANESH BHARDWAJ & OTHERS

CITATION	(2025) LIVELAW (SC) 369 | 2025 INSC 415
DATE	17 MARCH 2025
COURT NAME	SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT/PETITIONER	RANJIT SARKAR (APPELLANT)
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT	RAVI GANESH BHARDWAJ  ILS HOSPITALS, DUM DUM, KOLKATA DR. ANIRBAN SAHADR. DEBASISH MITRA DR. SUMAN CHATTERJEE(RESPONDENTS)
JUDGES	JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTAJUSTICE MANMOHAN

INTRODUCTION

In this landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India examined the correct interpretation of Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) and its parallel provision under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS – Section 279). The key question was whether the absence of a complainant on a hearing date that was not fixed for the accused’s appearance mandated the acquittal of the accused.

The Bench, comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan, critically evaluated procedural lapses committed by lower courts, the applicability of Section 256 CrPC, and the importance of adhering to procedural safeguards during exceptional circumstances like the COVID-19 pandemic. The judgment also clarified the jurisdictional limits of revisional courts and the hierarchical relationship between Sessions Courts and High Courts in criminal procedure.

FACTS OF THE CASE 

1. The appellant, Ranjit Sarkar, filed a criminal complaint in 2017 alleging medical negligence leading to the death of his 36-year-old son in 2014. The complaint was filed under Section 304A IPC against five respondents, including treating doctors and ILS Hospital in Dum Dum, Kolkata.
2. The Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore, took cognisance and issued summons under Section 204 CrPC.
3. The accused/respondents filed CRR No. 2327/2018 before the Calcutta High Court seeking quashing of the summons. On 18 September 2018, the High Court granted a stay on proceedings.
4. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the High Court issued a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) on 27 November 2020, directing all subordinate courts to avoid dismissal for default unless valid, recorded reasons exist, considering pandemic-related hardship.
5. Despite this, the Magistrate listed the matter for 6 January 2021 (when the complainant was ill) and again on 16 April 2021 for a show-cause appearance. On the latter date, the complainant remained absent due to being COVID-positive.
6. The Magistrate dismissed the complaint and treated the case as closed under Section 256 CrPC, equating the complainant’s absence to an implied withdrawal.
7. The appellant moved the Sessions Court, which restored the complaint in Criminal Revision 262/2021.
8. The accused then filed CRR No. 359/2023, where the High Court quashed the Sessions Judge’s order, holding that the complaint had been dismissed earlier and could not be revived.
9. The matter reached the Supreme Court through SLP (Crl.) No. 205/2025.

ISSUES OF THE CASE

1. Does the absence of a complainant on a date not fixed for the accused’s appearance justify automatic acquittal under Section 256 CrPC / Section 279 BNSS?
2. Was the dismissal of the complaint by the Magistrate lawful, given the existence of a High Court stay order and a COVID-19 SOP prohibiting dismissal for default?
3. Did the Sessions Court exceed its jurisdiction by restoring the complaint after the High Court had earlier disposed of a related revision?
4. Did the High Court err in quashing the Sessions Judge’s order, relying heavily on an earlier, non-binding observation in CRR No. 2327 of 2018?

JUDGEMENT

  The Supreme Court, after carefully examining the procedural record, statutory provisions, and judicial discipline involved, laid down the following findings and directions in its judgment dated 17 March 2025:

1. The Court held that the dismissal of the criminal complaint dated 16 April 2021 by the Judicial Magistrate was both procedurally flawed and jurisdictionally incompetent, as the statutory conditions under Section 256 CrPC were not satisfied.
2. It clarified that Section 256 CrPC is not to be applied mechanically. The provision mandates that an accused can be acquitted only when the complainant is absent on a date specifically fixed for the accused’s appearance. Since 16 April 2021 was not such a date, the invocation of this provision was invalid.
3. The Court noted that the said date was fixed only to allow the complainant to respond to a show-cause notice regarding a prior absence. The accused had neither been summoned for that day nor were they expected to appear. Thus, the precondition under Section 256 CrPC remained unmet.
4. The Court further observed that the Magistrate proceeded in violation of a binding stay order issued by the Calcutta High Court in CRR No. 2327/2018 on 18 September 2018. Ignoring this stay constituted a serious breach of judicial discipline and rendered all subsequent proceedings, including the dismissal, void ab initio.
5. The Court criticised the Magistrate’s disregard for the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) issued by the Calcutta High Court on 27 November 2020. The SOP explicitly instructed subordinate courts not to dismiss complaints for default during the COVID-19 pandemic unless detailed reasons were recorded. The complainant, being COVID-positive and a senior citizen, had a valid and documented reason for his absence.
6. It held that the Sessions Judge, in Criminal Revision No. 262/2021, acted well within the scope of revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 399 CrPC. The Sessions Court was not sitting in appeal over the High Court but correcting an evident miscarriage of justice by restoring the complaint.
7. The Court found that the Calcutta High Court, in CRR No. 359/2023, erred in holding that the Sessions Court had exceeded its jurisdiction. The High Court mistakenly presumed that CRR No. 2327/2018 had attained finality, although it was neither decided on merits nor did it involve the complainant as a party.
8. It clarified that CRR No. 2327/2018 did not result in any conclusive adjudication. The assumption that it barred further proceedings was legally unsustainable, and the reliance placed on it by the High Court to quash the restoration order was misplaced.
9. Invoking its plenary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court revived CRR No. 2327/2018 and directed the High Court to dispose of the matter on merits within six months.
10. Accordingly, the Supreme Court issued the following directions:

1. The High Court’s order dated 15 July 2024 in CRR No. 359/2023 is set aside.
2. The dismissal order passed by the Judicial Magistrate on 16 April 2021 is declared without jurisdiction and nullified.
3. Complaint Case No. 2 of 2017 is restored to the file of the Judicial Magistrate for continuation of proceedings in accordance with law.
4. CRR No. 2327/2018 is revived and directed to be decided on merits by the High Court within six months from the date of the judgment.

REASONING

1.Interpretation of Section 256 CrPC / Section 279 BNSS

The Supreme Court offered a nuanced interpretation of Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and its analogous provision under Section 279 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. It reiterated that the Magistrate may acquit the accused for the complainant’s absence only when the date is explicitly fixed for the appearance of the accused. The statutory language is unambiguous:

“If the summons has been issued on a complaint, and the day appointed for the accused’s appearance, the complainant does not appear…”

In the instant case, 16 April 2021 was not a date fixed for the accused’s appearance; it was solely scheduled for the complainant to respond to a show-cause notice regarding prior absence. The accused were neither directed to attend nor present on that date. Hence, the essential condition for invoking Section 256 CrPC was not fulfilled.

The Court cautioned against mechanical application of this provision, emphasising that doing so—particularly where the complainant’s absence is not wilful and no prejudice is caused to the accused—would subvert the goal of substantive justice. Instead, procedural safeguards must be upheld to protect the complainant’s right to a fair hearing.

2.Magistrate’s Jurisdictional Error and SOP Violation 

The Court held that the Magistrate’s dismissal of the complaint violated a judicial stay order issued by the Calcutta High Court in CRR No. 2327/2018, dated 18 September 2018. Proceeding in spite of the stay amounted to a grave breach of judicial discipline and rendered all subsequent orders, including the dismissal, without jurisdiction.

Additionally, the Magistrate disregarded the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) dated 27 November 2020, issued during the COVID-19 pandemic, which mandated that no complaint was to be dismissed for default unless exceptional circumstances were recorded in writing. The complainant, being COVID-positive and a senior citizen, had a legitimate and documented medical reason for non-appearance.

The Magistrate’s failure to consider these factors or provide any judicial reasoning demonstrated an arbitrary exercise of discretion. The Court reaffirmed that judicial authority must be exercised with contextual sensitivity and fairness, not through rigid or formulaic reliance on procedural rules.

3.Sessions Court’s Revisional Jurisdiction Was Validly Exercised

The Sessions Court had exercised its revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 399 CrPC, which empower higher courts to rectify material errors, illegality, or failure of justice in subordinate court orders. The Court upheld the Sessions Judge’s restoration of the complaint, stating it was a necessary corrective measure against the Magistrate’s unlawful dismissal.      

The Supreme Court further clarified that the Sessions Court was not sitting in appeal over any High Court decision. Rather, it exercised independent supervisory powers in a case where the complainant had never been a party to the earlier CRR No. 2327/2018. Thus, the High Court’s assumption in CRR No. 359/2023 that the Sessions Judge had exceeded jurisdiction was unfounded.

4.High Court’s Erroneous Interpretation of Finality in CRR No. 2327/2018

The High Court’s order in CRR No. 359/2023 was based on the presumption that CRR No. 2327/2018 had conclusively disposed of the criminal complaint. However, the Supreme Court noted that this was a fundamental misreading of the record and procedural law.

Firstly, CRR No. 2327/2018 had been initiated by the accused—not the complainant—and had not culminated in a decision on the merits. Secondly, the complainant had no opportunity to be heard in that proceeding. Therefore, no binding finality could be attached to it.

Recognising the risk of injustice from such an error, the Supreme Court invoked its plenary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to revive CRR No. 2327/2018 and directed the Calcutta High Court to adjudicate it on merits within six months.

CONCLUSION

This judgment reiterates that substantive justice must prevail over procedural technicalities. The Supreme Court held that acquittal under Section 256 CrPC (and Section 279 BNSS) is not automatic, and can only be invoked when all jurisdictional facts are strictly satisfied—most importantly, that the date must be one fixed explicitly for the appearance of the accused.

The ruling emphasises the need for context-sensitive judicial reasoning, particularly during emergencies such as the COVID-19 pandemic, where procedural defaults may occur due to genuine hardship. The Court reaffirmed that judicial discretion must be exercised judiciously, in line with statutory intent, superior court directions, and principles of natural justice.

By invoking Article 142 to revive a revision disposed of prematurely, the Supreme Court demonstrated its commitment to ensuring complete justice, correcting errors without letting procedural rigidity defeat the cause of fairness.

 This decision now serves as a binding precedent for all subordinate courts, clarifying that acquittal under Section 256 CrPC / Section 279 BNSS is conditional and not mechanical. It protects complainants’ rights against arbitrary dismissals, ensuring that criminal complaints are decided on the merits and not defeated by technical lapses.

REFERENCES

 Supreme Court Judgment PDF (LiveLaw)

  Official Judgment (2025 INSC 415)

   LiveLaw Article on the Case

This article is written by Sanna Hussain 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.