Latest JudgementCode of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Ranjit Sarkar v. Ravi Ganesh Bhardwaj and Others, 2025
Interpretation of Section 256 CrPC concerning the non-appearance of the complainant and the conditions for acquittal of the accused, particularly in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and related restrictions.
Supreme Court of India·1 April 2025
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Judgement Details
Court
Supreme Court of India
Date of Decision
1 April 2025
Judges
Justice Dipankar Datta ⦁ Justice Manmohan
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Facts of the Case
- The Appellant-Complainant was a septuagenarian who could not appear in court due to COVID-19 restrictions and his own illness from COVID.
- The Calcutta High Court had quashed the proceedings and acquitted the Respondent-Accused because the complainant did not appear on the day set for the hearing.
- The trial court had earlier dismissed the complainant’s case due to the complainant's absence despite the High Court's Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) that mandated no case dismissal due to absence during the COVID-19 outbreak.
- The complainant challenged the acquittal, arguing that the date set for hearing was not for the accused's appearance, but for the complainant to show cause for his previous absence.
Issues
- Whether the absence of the complainant on a date set for showing cause, and not for the appearance of the accused, warrants the acquittal of the accused under Section 256 CrPC?
- Whether the Calcutta High Court's interpretation of Section 256 CrPC was correct in the context of the COVID-19 restrictions and the purpose of the hearing date?
- What constitutes a valid "appointed day" for the appearance of the accused, and how does it relate to the complainant's presence or absence?
Held
- The Supreme Court ruled that the dismissal of the complaint due to the complainant's failure to appear on a show-cause date did not justify an acquittal.
- It clarified that acquittal under Section 256 CrPC is warranted only when the date is specifically set for the appearance of the accused. In this case, since the date was set for the complainant to show cause for his previous absence, acquittal was not justified.
Analysis
- Reasoning: The Court emphasized the importance of the purpose for which the date is set. Section 256 CrPC applies specifically when the accused’s appearance is required, and the complainant’s absence on a show-cause date does not result in automatic acquittal.
- Context of COVID-19: The judgment took into account the extraordinary circumstances caused by the pandemic and emphasized that COVID-19-related SOPs should have been factored into decisions regarding the complainant's absence.
- Legal Precedent: This decision reaffirms that Section 256 CrPC mandates acquittal only in cases where the complainant’s absence on the appointed date for the accused's appearance hinders progress in the trial. The Court clarified that the purpose of the hearing date must be considered when deciding whether acquittal is warranted.
- Practical Impact: The judgment ensures that complainants are not unfairly penalized due to unforeseen circumstances like illness or restrictions, and provides guidance on the correct application of Section 256, especially when the case is delayed due to external factors.