A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The appeal concerns the validity of the Judicial Magistrate’s orders of 6 January 2021 and 16 April 2021 that culminated in dismissal of a complaint for default in a Section 304-A IPC complaint filed under Section 200 Cr.P.C. The respondents had earlier secured interim stay of the subordinate-court proceedings by approaching the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

The complaint was called on 6 January 2021 for the limited purpose of requiring the complainant to show cause why the complaint should not be dismissed for default; the Magistrate fixed 16 April 2021 for the complainant’s response. The complainant a septuagenarian who contracted COVID-19 did not attend, and the Magistrate dismissed the complaint for default.

The Sessions Judge in revision restored the complaint, holding that the complainant had sufficient cause and that Section 256 Cr.P.C. (acquittal for non-appearance of complainant) did not automatically apply because the date was not appointed for appearance of the accused. The High Court later set aside the revisional order, relying on an earlier observation that non-appearance of complainant ordinarily attracts Section 256 and results in acquittal.

The Supreme Court, allowing the appeal, held that:

(i) the Magistrate could not have validly dismissed the complaint on 16 April 2021 while an operative stay and pandemic SoP were in place unless cognizable reasons were recorded;

(ii) Section 256 operates only when the date is one appointed for appearance of the accused (or any adjourned day for that purpose); and

(iii) the Sessions Judge had correctly intervened by restoring the complaint.

The High Court order of 15 July 2024 was set aside and the complaint and related CRR restored for fresh adjudication.

Keywords: Section 256 Cr.P.C., acquittal on non-appearance, dismissal for default, COVID SoP, stay by High Court, revision, Section 304-A IPC.

B) CASE DETAILS 

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

Ranjit Sarkar filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. alleging medical negligence causing death, invoking Section 304-A IPC. The Judicial Magistrate issued process under Section 204(1) and summons were served. The respondents sought to quash summons under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and secured an interim stay of proceedings from the High Court on 18 September 2018, the stay being extended periodically.

In March 2020 the COVID-19 pandemic triggered nationwide restrictions; the High Court of West Bengal issued an SoP on 27 November 2020 directing extreme caution: courts should not dismiss matters for default save upon cogent reasons. Notwithstanding the subsisting stay and the SoP, the Judicial Magistrate called the complaint on 6 January 2021 to seek a show-cause from the complainant for his repeated absence and fixed 16 April 2021 for the complainant’s reply.

The complainant, a senior citizen who contracted COVID-19, remained absent on that date and the Magistrate dismissed the complaint for default. The complainant pursued revision before the Sessions Judge who set aside both subordinate court orders and restored the complaint. The respondents challenged that revisional order in the High Court (CRR No. 359 of 2023) which, relying on an earlier observation in CRR No. 2327 of 2018, interpreted Section 256 Cr.P.C. to mean that absence of the complainant ordinarily leads to acquittal of accused and therefore set aside the revisional order.

The matter reached the Supreme Court, which examined the interaction of Section 256 with case fixation purposes, the effect of a subsisting High Court stay and the pandemic SoP, and whether acquittal must be read into every dismissal for default. The Court concluded that the Session Judge had correctly intervened and that the High Court erred in setting aside the revisional order.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The appellant’s son died on account of injuries sustained in a fall (10 July 2014); appellant alleged criminal medical negligence by hospital and doctors, and lodged a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. alleging offence under Section 304-A IPC. The Judicial Magistrate recorded the appellant’s statement on oath and issued process under Section 204(1) Cr.P.C. Respondents, upon service of summons, moved the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.; the High Court, by order dated 18 September 2018, stayed the subordinate court proceedings and that stay was extended periodically.

The COVID-19 pandemic and consequent national lockdown (March 2020) led to a High Court SoP dated 27 November 2020 advising that courts should not dismiss matters for default except upon cogent reasons and exercise extreme caution before passing ex parte orders. Despite the stay and SoP the Judicial Magistrate listed the complaint on 6 January 2021; the appellant was absent and the Magistrate required him to show cause why complaint should not be dismissed, fixing 16 April 2021 for response.

The appellant, a septuagenarian, contracted COVID-19 and did not appear on 16 April 2021; the Magistrate dismissed the complaint for default. The appellant pursued revision: Sessions Judge allowed revision (set aside Magistrate’s orders) observing complainant had sufficient cause and that Section 256 did not apply because the date was not fixed for appearance of accused and the accused were also absent.

The respondents moved the High Court in CRR No. 359 of 2023 which set aside the Sessions Judge’s order relying on earlier High Court observation in CRR No. 2327 of 2018 that non-appearance of complainant would attract Section 256 and result in acquittal. The Supreme Court took up the challenge to the High Court’s order dated 15 July 2024.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether Section 256 Cr.P.C. mandates acquittal of the accused whenever the complainant is absent on a date when the case is listed for any purpose?
ii. Whether a dismissal for default by a Magistrate is permissible when a High Court interim stay of proceedings subsists?
iii. Whether the SoP issued during the COVID-19 pandemic (27.11.2020) required recording cogent reasons before dismissal for default and ex parte orders?
iv. Whether the Sessions Judge exceeded jurisdiction in allowing revision and restoring the complaint contrary to an earlier observation by the High Court?
v. What is the correct reading of “the day appointed for the appearance of the accused, or any day subsequent thereto to which the hearing may be adjourned” in Section 256?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for Petitioner / Appellant submitted that the Magistrate’s order of 16 April 2021 was illegal because the date was fixed for show-cause and not for appearance of accused; hence Section 256 did not attract automatic acquittal. It was argued that the complainant had sufficient cause for absence — serious illness from COVID-19 and advanced age — and that the Magistrate acted contrary to the High Court SoP of 27 November 2020 and while an operative stay from the High Court subsisted. The petitioner contended that the Sessions Judge rightly exercised revisional jurisdiction and that the High Court’s reliance on an earlier observation was a misapprehension of facts and law.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for Respondent submitted that dismissal for default was proper because the complainant repeatedly failed to prosecute the complaint and had not appeared despite calls; earlier High Court disposal indicated that non-appearance ideally attracts Section 256 and results in acquittal of accused. They argued that the Sessions Judge in revision had effectively re-opened matters which the High Court had considered and that the High Court’s order setting aside the revisional order was legally sustainable.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS 

i. Section 256, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Non-appearance or death of complainant)
ii. Section 255, Cr.P.C. (Acquittal on consideration of evidence) — contextual to Chapter XX
iii. Section 254, Cr.P.C. (Procedure where conviction not recorded)
iv. Section 200, Section 204(1) and Section 482 Cr.P.C. (complaint, issue of process, and inherent jurisdiction)
v. Section 304-A, Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Causing death by negligence)
vi. High Court SoP dated 27.11.2020 governing court functioning during COVID pandemic.

I) JUDGEMENT 

The Court held that the High Court’s impugned order (15 July 2024) occasioned a grave failure of justice because it overlooked both facts and law. Two discrete errors were identified: factual misapprehension (the High Court incorrectly assumed the appellant had filed CRR No. 2327 of 2018) and legal overreach (treating an earlier observation as final and binding in a manner that precluded revision).

The Supreme Court analyzed Section 256 Cr.P.C. within Chapter XX (Trial of Summons-Cases) and emphasised that Section 256 operates when the date is one appointed for appearance of the accused or any adjourned day for that purpose. If the date is fixed for another purpose (for example, to show cause why dismissal should not be ordered) the immediate consequence of the complainant’s absence may be dismissal for default but not inexorable acquittal of the accused.

The Court further observed that on 16 April 2021 (a date fixed for show-cause) both complainant and respondents were absent, and in any event the Magistrate could not have dismissed the complaint while an operative High Court stay subsisted and when the SoP cautioned against dismissal save for cogent reasons. The Sessions Judge’s interference in revision was therefore justified; the High Court’s reliance on the earlier observation was flawed because that observation misinterpreted Section 256 and ignored the peculiar facts and pandemic SoP.

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court order, restored the Magistrate’s file and CRR No. 2327 of 2018, and directed expeditious disposal by the High Court (roster bench on 17 April 2025), leaving substantive rights to be determined in accordance with law.

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

The decisive legal principle is that Section 256 Cr.P.C. must be read with reference to the operative phrase “the day appointed for the appearance of the accused”: only when the date fixed is for the accused’s appearance (or an adjourned date for that same purpose) does the complainant’s non-appearance normally mandate acquittal of the accused unless the magistrate elects to adjourn.

Where the listing serves a different procedural purpose (for example, to obtain a show-cause from the complainant, produce material, or fetch an order from a superior court), the logic that equates complainant’s absence with automatic acquittal does not apply.

The presence of an extant High Court stay and a pandemic SoP which requires recording cogent reasons before dismissal further support interference with a dismissal for default. Thus, the Sessions Judge properly exercised revisional jurisdiction to set aside the dismissal and restore the complaint.

b. OBITER DICTA

The Court observed, obiter, that courts must be cautious when making broad legal pronouncements in interlocutory or procedural contexts, especially where operative facts (such as a subsisting stay or pandemic directives) materially alter the propriety of orders like dismissal or acquittal. The opinion criticised the practice of treating an earlier tentative observation as a conclusive precedent in the same case without an opportunity for the parties to be heard on the matter.

The Court also signalled the wider administrative lesson that courts must heed institutional SoPs during public emergencies and should record specific findings before taking severe procedural steps against litigants who are vulnerable or affected by public health restrictions.

c. GUIDELINES 

1. When listing a summons-case the magistrate must identify the purpose of the listing; Section 256 applies only when the date is appointed for the accused’s appearance or an adjournment of such appearance.

2. If a case is listed for a show-cause or administrative purpose, the court may dismiss for default but must not read acquittal into every such dismissal.

3. Where a superior court’s stay subsists, subordinate courts lack jurisdiction to pass orders affecting the lis; such limitation must be respected.

4. During declared public emergencies (e.g., COVID-19), courts should follow SoPs and record cogent reasons before dismissing matters for default or passing ex parte orders, particularly where litigants are elderly or medically vulnerable.

5. High Courts should avoid treating earlier non-decisional observations as final when later proceedings afford scope for full consideration; revisional jurisdiction must not be stifled by preliminary remarks.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The decision clarifies a recurring procedural ambiguity: Section 256 Cr.P.C. is not a catch-all mandate that every dismissal for complainant’s non-appearance transubstantiates into an acquittal. Context and the purpose of the listing are determinative. The judgment protects procedural fairness by insisting courts record reasons before taking draconian steps, and by reminding subordinate magistrates to respect superior court stays.

The Court’s insistence on adherence to pandemic SoP underscores how extraordinary administrative circumstances must inform judicial process. Practically, the ruling preserves the complainant’s right to prosecutorial redress where absence is excusable and prevents premature termination of proceedings through mechanical reading of Section 256. It also cautions appellate and revisional fora against treating passing observations as conclusive.

For litigators, the judgment recommends careful case management: when a case is fixed for procedural purposes, magistrates should clearly state the purpose on the record; parties should seek appropriate interim relief where stays or public health directives may impede attendance; and revisional remedies remain available to correct interlocutory errors that produce substantial prejudice.

K) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred
i. Ranjit Sarkar v. Ravi Ganesh Bhardwaj & Ors., Criminal Appeal No. 1593 of 2025, Supreme Court of India, 17 March 2025; [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1448 : 2025 INSC 415.

b. Important Statutes Referred
i. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, §§ 200, 204(1), 256, 254, 255, 482.
ii. Indian Penal Code, 1860, § 304-A.