Supreme Court Clarifies Section 256 CrPC: Restores Medical Negligence Complaint Dismissed During COVID

In a significant judgment delivered on March 17, 2025, the Supreme Court of India restored a medical negligence complaint that had been dismissed by a Magistrate during the COVID-19 pandemic. The case, Ranjit Sarkar vs. Ravi Ganesh Bhardwaj & Others, revolves around the interpretation of Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and highlights the challenges faced by litigants during the pandemic. The Court’s decision provides crucial clarity on when a complaint can be dismissed for non-appearance of the complainant and when such dismissal should result in acquittal of the accused.

Background of the Case

The appellant, Ranjit Sarkar, had filed a complaint under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) alleging criminal medical negligence by a private hospital and its doctors in Dum Dum, Kolkata, which led to the death of his 36-year-old son. The son had suffered a traumatic fall in July 2014 and succumbed to his injuries despite medical treatment. The Judicial Magistrate issued summons to the respondents (doctors and hospital authorities) in 2017, but the proceedings were stayed by the Calcutta High Court in September 2018 after the respondents challenged the summons.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Magistrate unexpectedly called the case on January 6, 2021, despite the High Court’s stay order. The appellant, a septuagenarian suffering from COVID, could not appear. The Magistrate issued a show-cause notice and later dismissed the complaint on April 16, 2021, for non-appearance. This dismissal was challenged through multiple legal proceedings, leading to conflicting interpretations by different courts about whether the dismissal should result in acquittal under Section 256 CrPC.

Key Arguments Before the Supreme Court

Appellant’s Contentions

The appellant, appearing in person, argued:

The Magistrate violated the High Court’s Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for COVID, which prohibited dismissal of cases without cogent reasons showing deliberate avoidance by the litigant.
The proceedings were stayed by the High Court, making the Magistrate’s actions without jurisdiction.
Section 256 CrPC applies only when the case is fixed for accused’s appearance, not for show-cause hearings.
The Sessions Judge correctly restored the complaint after finding sufficient cause for non-appearance.

Respondents’ Contentions

Senior Counsel Mr. Mukherjee for the respondents argued:

The High Court’s September 2021 order had conclusively held that dismissal should be treated as acquittal under Section 256 CrPC.
The Sessions Judge could not sit in appeal over the High Court’s interpretation.
The appellant had alternative remedies which he failed to exhaust properly.

Supreme Court’s Analysis

Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan identified multiple legal errors in the High Court’s approach:

1. COVID SOP Violation and Jurisdictional Error

The Court emphasized:

“COVID restrictions being in place and in terms of the SoP framed by the High Court, the Judicial Magistrate could not have dismissed the complaint for default on 16th April, 2021 without recording a satisfaction that either the appellant was deliberately avoiding participation in the proceedings or that his recalcitrance was such, which left the Judicial Magistrate with no other option but to dismiss the complaint for default.”

2. Misinterpretation of Section 256 CrPC

The Court provided a detailed analysis of Section 256:

“What 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… acquittal of the accused does not necessarily follow.”

The Court clarified that April 16, 2021 was fixed for show-cause, not accused’s appearance, making Section 256 inapplicable.

3. Factual Misapprehension by High Court

The Supreme Court noted the High Court’s fundamental error:

“The learned Judge was anchored in the belief that it was the appellant who had approached the High Court by filing CRR No. 2327 of 2018. As noticed, CRR No. 2327 of 2018 was at the instance of the respondents.”

Court’s Decision

The Supreme Court:

Set aside the High Court’s July 2024 order that had upheld the complaint’s dismissal
Restored the complaint to the Magistrate’s file
Revived the respondents’ challenge to the summons (CRR No. 2327/2018) before the High Court
Directed the High Court to decide the matter within six months

Key Legal Principles Established

Section 256 CrPC applies only when: The date is fixed for accused’s appearance AND the accused is present.
Dismissal ≠ Acquittal: Mere dismissal for non-appearance doesn’t automatically result in acquittal unless specific conditions are met.
COVID Considerations: Courts must be particularly lenient about non-appearance during pandemic periods.
Hierarchy of Courts: Lower courts can correct procedural errors even if higher courts have made observations, provided they don’t directly overrule higher court orders.

Conclusion

This judgment serves as an important reminder about the need for courts to carefully consider the purpose of case listings before invoking Section 256 CrPC. It also highlights the judiciary’s responsibility to ensure access to justice isn’t denied due to procedural technicalities, especially during extraordinary circumstances like the COVID-19 pandemic. The Supreme Court’s intervention has ensured that a grieving father’s quest for justice in a medical negligence case will get a proper hearing on merits.

Petitioner Name: Ranjit Sarkar.
Respondent Name: Ravi Ganesh Bhardwaj and Others.
Judgment By: Justice DIPANKAR DATTA, Justice MANMOHAN.
Place Of Incident: Dum Dum, Kolkata.
Judgment Date: 16-03-2025.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: ranjit-sarkar-vs-ravi-ganesh-bhardwaj-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-16-03-2025.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Medical Malpractice
See all petitions in Bail and Anticipatory Bail
See all petitions in Custodial Deaths and Police Misconduct
See all petitions in Attempt to Murder Cases
See all petitions in Legal Malpractice
See all petitions in Judgment by Dipankar Datta
See all petitions in Judgment by Manmohan
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments March 2025
See all petitions in 2025 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category