Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s):Mr. Ranjit Sarkar, Petitioner-in-person
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Rana Mukherjee, Sr. Adv. Mr. Partha Sil, AOR Ms. Oindrilla Sen, Adv. Ms. Sayani Bhattacharya, Adv. Mr. Samarth Mohanty, Adv. Mr. Srijit Datta, Adv.

What is the interpretation and applicability of Section 256, Cr.P.C. when the complainant is absent and the date fixed is not for appearance of the accused? What is the proper legal consequence when a complaint is dismissed for default under Section 256, Cr.P.C. in the backdrop of stay orders and COVID-19 SOPs? What are the limits of revisional and appellate interference with a High Court observation interpreting Section 256, Cr.P.C. in ensuring due process and revival of the complaint?

Key Points: - (!) The judgment interprets Section 256, Cr.P.C. to determine when acquittal of the accused is warranted due to non-appearance, specifically noting it must be on the day appointed for the appearance of the accused. - (!) It holds that if the date fixed is for a purpose other than appearance of the accused, non-appearance of the complainant does not automatically lead to acquittal of the accused, and dismissal for default may be appropriate only under correct circumstances. - (!) The Court finds that the High Court’s July 15, 2024 order interfered with prior observations and effectively allowed an order of acquittal contrary to the earlier observation, constituting grave miscarriage of justice. - (!) The Court revives Complaint Case No. 2 of 2017 and sets aside the High Court’s disposal of CRR No. 359 of 2023, directing revival of the case on the Judicial Magistrate’s file. - (!) It directs revival of CRR No. 2327 of 2018 and mandates the High Court to decide it within six months, with appearance before the roster bench on a specified date. - (!) It clarifies that the interpretation of Section 256, Cr.P.C. is not to be read as an automatic acquittal for non-appearance when the non-appearance is due to circumstances not tied to fixed appearance, such as stay orders or exceptional situations. - (!) The judgment acknowledges multiple remedies available to challenge a dismissal for default, including revisions, CRRs, and constitutional provisions (Art. 142), and condemns improper appellate-like interference by lower courts with this Court’s observations. - (!) The judgment emphasizes that the stay orders and operative SOPs during COVID affected the theater of proceedings and cannot be used to justify improper acquittals or dismissals without proper procedure. - (!) It confirms that the accused can be revived to contest the matter as per law, and the matter shall proceed in accordance with law as early as possible.

What is the interpretation and applicability of Section 256, Cr.P.C. when the complainant is absent and the date fixed is not for appearance of the accused?

What is the proper legal consequence when a complaint is dismissed for default under Section 256, Cr.P.C. in the backdrop of stay orders and COVID-19 SOPs?

What are the limits of revisional and appellate interference with a High Court observation interpreting Section 256, Cr.P.C. in ensuring due process and revival of the complaint?