High Court order setting aside Sessions Judge’s restoration of complaint is set aside; complaint and revisional petition revived

A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan heard an appeal challenging the High Court of Calcutta’s July 15, 2024 order which had allowed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and set aside a Sessions Judge’s revisional order that had restored a dismissed criminal complaint. The appeal required interpretation of Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and raised whether a magistrate could be treated as having acquitted accused where the complainant was absent on a date fixed only to show cause for default.

The Court allowed the appeal in part, held that the High Court’s order dated July 15, 2024 occasioned “a grave failure of justice,” and set it aside. The Supreme Court restored Complaint Case No. 2 of 2017 to the file of the Judicial Magistrate and revived CRR No. 2327 of 2018 before the High Court, directing the High Court to decide that revisional petition preferably within six months. The Court emphasised that Section 256 did not automatically entitle accused to acquittal where the date was not appointed for their appearance and where other jurisdictional facts, including an existing stay and pandemic-era SOPs, were present. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "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'." The Court further directed the parties to appear before the roster bench of the High Court on April 17, 2025 and ordered the complaint to be taken to its "logical conclusion" in accordance with law.

Background The dispute arose after the appellant’s son died following a fall in 2014; the appellant alleged criminal medical negligence and filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore, alleging an offence under Section 304A IPC. Process issued under Section 204(1) Cr.P.C. The respondents obtained interim relief in CRR No. 2327 of 2018 and the High Court stayed proceedings on September 18, 2018. During the COVID-19 pandemic the High Court circulated a Standard Operating Procedure noting that "Ordinarily, matters should not be dismissed for default... Similarly, extreme caution should be exercised before passing any ex parte order". Despite the stay and the SOP, the Judicial Magistrate called the matter on January 6, 2021 and fixed April 16, 2021 for the complainant to show cause for his absence; the complainant, who was ill with COVID-19, did not appear, and the magistrate dismissed the complaint for default on April 16, 2021.

The appellant challenged dismissal by way of criminal revision (CRR No. 262/2021) before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, who allowed the revision, set aside the dismissal orders of January 6 and April 16, 2021, and restored the complaint to file, directing appearance on December 23, 2022. The respondents then filed CRR No. 359 of 2023 before the High Court which allowed the petition on July 15, 2024 and set aside the revisional order, effectively closing the complaint. The appellant moved this Court. The Supreme Court found the High Court’s July 15, 2024 order to be based on a narrow and factually misconceived reading of an earlier September 9, 2021 order and on an incorrect interpretation of Section 256 Cr.P.C. The Court held that the magistrate had no jurisdiction to dismiss the complaint on April 16, 2021 in view of the subsisting stay and the SOP and that the Sessions Judge had validly exercised revisional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order, revived the dismissed complaint and the earlier criminal revision, and directed expeditious disposal while expressly reserving consideration of rival contentions on merits.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 415 (Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 205 of 2025) Case Title: Ranjit Sarkar v. Ravi Ganesh Bhardwaj and Others Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Ranjit Sarkar (appellant, in person) For the Respondent(s): Mr. Mukherjee, learned Senior Counsel (for respondents)