LexRANJIT SARKAR versus RAVI GANESH BHARDWAJ AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 1448 : 2025 INSC 415 Ranjit Sarkar v. Ravi Ganesh Bhardwaj and Others (Criminal Appeal No. 1593 of 2025) 17 March 2025 [Dipankar Datta* and Manmohan, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether in the instant case, the Judicial Magistrate in terms of s.256, Cr.PC was justified in dismissing the complaint for default vide order dated 16.04.2021. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.256 – Appellant lodged a complaint alleging offence u/s.304-A of IPC – Judicial Magistrate issued process – Respondent arrayed as accused therein filed an application u/s. 482 Cr.PC (CRR No. 2327 of 2018) and sought quashing of summons – The High Court stayed proceedings – Owing to outbreak of COVID, there was national lockdown – Despite the aforesaid stay, Judicial Magistrate called the complaint case on 06.01.2021 and dismissed the complaint for default vide order dated 16.04.2021 – In Revision, the Sessions Judge held that appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting himself and set aside the orders dated 06.01.2021 and 16.04.2021 – Aggrieved, the respondents filed fresh application u/s.482 Cr.PC (CRR No. 359 of 2023) – The High Court set aside the revisional order – Correctness: Held: From the tenor of the order dated 06.01.2021, it is clear that 16.04.2021 was not the day appointed for appearance of the respondents – It was the date on which the appellant was required to show cause – Had COVID restrictions not been in place and in otherwise normal circumstances, if the appellant remained absent on the date appointed for appearance of the respondents, without showing sufficient cause, the Judicial Magistrate in terms of s.256, Cr.PC would have been justified in recording an order of acquittal of the respondents had they been present unless, for some reason, * Author [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1449 Ranjit Sarkar v. Ravi Ganesh Bhardwaj and Others he intended to adjourn the hearing to some other day – However, the jurisdictional facts for recording an acquittal u/s.256, Cr.PC were not satisfied in the present case, firstly, because it was not the appointed day for appearance of the respondents and secondly, they were also not present – Owing to the absence of the appellant and owing to his omission to respond to the show-cause, the Judicial Magistrate could, at best, be justified in dismissing the complaint for default, which he did but which he could not have done having regard to the facts of the notification dated 27.11.2020 (SOP for functioning of Court during COVID pandemic) being in force on 16.04.2021 and operation of the stay order granted by the High Court on 18.09.2018 – The Sessions Judge had assigned sufficient reason why the complaint should not have been dismissed based on correct interpretation of s.256 Cr.PC. [Paras 20, 21] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.256 – Invoking of: Held: What assumes importance for invoking s.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”. [Para 19] List of Acts Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. List of Keywords Section 256 of Cr.PC; Appearance of accused; Acquittal of accused; Absence of complainant; Day appointed for appearance; Non-appearance of complainant; Death of complainant. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1593 of 2025 From the Judgment and Order dated 15.07.2024 of the High Court at Calcutta in CRR No. 359 of 2023 1450 [2025] 3 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Respondents: Rana Mukherjee, Sr. Adv., Partha Sil, Ms. Oindrilla Sen, Ms. Sayani Bhattacharya, Samarth Mohanty, Srijit Datta. Petitioner-in-person. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Dipankar Datta, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal, inter alia, tasks us to interpret Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731. 3. The appellant’s son, holder of a degree of Doctor of Philosophy, died relatively young at the age of 36 years. Such unfortunate death was preceded by a traumatic fall that he had from a staircase on 10th July, 2014. The appellant had his son immediately admitted
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.