The Supreme Court’s Clarification on Section 256 CrPC: Limited Scope for Acquittal Absent Day Fixed for Accused’s Appearance

Introduction

The dispute in Ranjit Sarkar v. Ravi Ganesh Bharadwaj (2025 INSC 415) arose from the tragic death of the appellant’s son allegedly due to medical negligence. The appellant initiated criminal proceedings under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code before the Magistrate’s Court, alleging criminal negligence by the hospital and the attending doctors. Subsequently, the matter underwent multiple rounds of litigation, including a challenge before the High Court of Calcutta, and eventually reached the Supreme Court of India.

The core legal question revolved around the correct interpretation and application of Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). Specifically, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether the Magistrate could dismiss a complaint for default and whether an order of acquittal under Section 256 CrPC should be automatically passed when the complainant was absent, even if the date was not appointed for the appearance of the accused.

In clarifying this provision of the CrPC, the Supreme Court laid down a significant ruling that has implications for the procedure in summons cases and the circumstances under which dismissal of a complaint or acquittal may be ordered.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the complainant (appellant), setting aside the High Court’s order that had validated the dismissal of the complaint for default. The Supreme Court also revived the complaint case before the Judicial Magistrate and reinstated the earlier revision application (CRR No. 2327 of 2018) before the High Court for fresh consideration.

The Court observed that:

• The Magistrate had proceeded to dismiss the complaint for default on a date when neither the accused were to appear nor was the date intended to proceed with the hearing on merits of the complaint. Instead, the complainant alone had to show cause for his absence.
• The High Court’s earlier observation — that dismissing the complaint for default on such a date amounted ipso facto to an acquittal — was held to be an incorrect interpretation of Section 256 CrPC.
• The stay granted by the High Court on the proceedings had not been vacated or lifted at the relevant time, thereby calling into question the Magistrate’s jurisdiction to pass an order of dismissal or acquittal under those circumstances.
• The pandemic-related Standard Operating Procedure (SoP) in West Bengal courts specifically cautioned against dismissals for default without recording deliberate avoidance or recalcitrance on the part of the complainant — a condition that was not satisfied here.

Analysis

A. Precedents Cited

Although the Supreme Court’s final opinion made reference to prior interpretations of Section 256 CrPC, the Judgment itself does not list a multitude of earlier authoritative precedents. Instead, it clarifies the scope of Section 256 in light of the purpose for which dates are set in a summons case. One guiding principle, drawn from earlier rulings, is that the day appointed for the appearance of the accused is critical to determining whether dismissal of the complaint may entail acquittal of the accused. The Supreme Court reiterated that not every date fixed in the matter is necessarily a date intended for the accused’s appearance, nor does the non-appearance of the complainant on intermediate dates automatically mandate an acquittal.

B. Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning focused on three core points:

1. Textual Interpretation of Section 256 CrPC: The Supreme Court highlighted that Section 256 contemplates an acquittal of the accused when the complainant fails to appear on the day appointed for the appearance of the accused or on any day subsequent thereto to which the hearing may be adjourned. Dates fixed solely for ancillary purposes (e.g., to show cause or to produce documents) do not automatically grant the Magistrate the power to acquit the accused for the complainant’s absence.
2. Stay of Proceedings: Given that the High Court had stayed the proceedings, the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to dismiss the complaint. Acting in contravention of a stay order rendered the trial court’s order illegal, and the Supreme Court underscored the fundamental principle that courts must respect higher courts’ injunctions.
3. COVID-19 SoP and Non-Appearance: The Supreme Court invoked the guidelines issued during the pandemic, which cautioned courts against dismissing matters for default unless deliberate avoidance or recalcitrance on the part of a party was satisfactorily demonstrated. The Supreme Court held that the Magistrate did not appropriately inquire into or record reasons relating to the appellant’s absence, particularly because the appellant (a septuagenarian) had contracted COVID-19.

C. Impact

The ruling in Ranjit Sarkar v. Ravi Ganesh Bharadwaj has significant implications for the legal community:

• Clear Guidance on Section 256 CrPC: Courts at all levels must now exercise caution in directly passing acquittal orders when the complainant is absent on dates that are not designated for the accused’s appearance. Such orders, if mechanically passed, can be invalidated as per the Supreme Court’s directives.
• Upholding Fairness in Summons Trials: The Judgment underscores the duty of courts to ensure procedural fairness. Before resorting to dismissals or acquittals, courts must verify the nature of the scheduled hearing. This preserves the right of the complainant to be heard and prevents unwarranted hardships to either party.
• COVID-19 and Court Procedures: The case also reaffirmed the need for leniency and practical consideration in light of pandemic-related complications, including health risks, lockdown restrictions, and official administrative guidelines.

Complex Concepts Simplified

1. Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This provision deals with causing death by negligence. In the context of this case, it relates specifically to alleged medical negligence resulting in a fatality.

2. Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC): This is the focal point of the Judgment. It allows a Magistrate to acquit an accused if the complainant does not appear on the date/time set for the accused’s appearance. However, an acquittal may only be justified if the date in question is indeed appointed for the accused’s presence and the court has confirmed the absence of the complainant without sufficient reason.

3. Dismissal for Default vs. Acquittal: Dismissing a complaint for default because the complainant is absent on a non-critical date (for example, not a date fixed for the accused’s appearance) does not always translate into an acquittal. The law creates a distinction between mere dismissal (which might later be reversed upon a sufficient showing of cause) and a conclusive acquittal of an accused.

4. Revision and Inherent Powers under Section 482 CrPC: Courts have inherent powers to prevent abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice. A party unsatisfied with an erroneous order of the lower court can invoke these mechanisms. In this case, the High Court’s inherent power was incorrectly invoked to uphold a wrongful dismissal, and the Supreme Court ultimately rectified that error.

5. Standard Operating Procedure (SoP) during COVID-19: Instructions were circulated to subordinate courts and High Courts to avoid dismissing cases for default during the pandemic unless the party’s absence was proven deliberate or recalcitrant. This guidance was intended to safeguard litigants who faced serious mobility and health issues during lockdowns.

Conclusion

The decision in Ranjit Sarkar v. Ravi Ganesh Bharadwaj is a landmark ruling regarding the ambit of Section 256 CrPC and the procedural obligations of courts when dealing with complainant absences. The Supreme Court categorically held that an acquittal order is not automatically warranted on any date when the complainant is absent, emphasizing that such acquittals under Section 256 can only be passed when the day is explicitly fixed for the accused’s appearance.

This Judgment reflects the Supreme Court’s commitment to fair procedure, especially amid extraordinary circumstances like the COVID-19 pandemic. It sends a strong message to Magistrates and High Courts alike to diligently assess whether the factual and procedural prerequisites are satisfied before dismissing complaints or granting acquittals. By reinstating the complaint and the relevant revision application, the Supreme Court also demonstrated that procedural errors in contravention of stay orders or administrative guidelines cannot be permitted to stand.

Looking ahead, this ruling will influence how trial courts address absences by complainants and ensure that the protection of defendants’ rights does not overshadow legitimate suits brought forward under the CrPC. Ultimately, the Judgment underscores the principle that fairness and justice must remain the paramount goals in criminal proceedings.