1 April 2025 Legal Updates

  S.256 CrPC/S.279 BNSS | Absence Of Complainant Will Not Always Lead To Acquittal Of Accused: Supreme Court  

a. Case Title:

• Ranjit Sarkar vs Ravi Ganesh Bhardwaj & Others  

b. Court:

• Supreme Court of India  

c. Date of Decision:

• March 17, 2025  

d. Bench:

• Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan  

Key Issue:

Whether the dismissal of a complaint under Section 256 CrPC due to the complainant’s absence during COVID-19, and subsequent High Court orders, violated procedural fairness and legal principles.  

Facts:

1. Appellant’s Case:

• Ranjit Sarkar filed a complaint (2017) under Section 304A IPC alleging medical negligence leading to his son’s death. The Judicial Magistrate issued summons to the accused (respondents).  

2. High Court Stay:

• Respondents challenged summons via Section 482 CrPC; High Court stayed proceedings (2018).  

3. Dismissal During COVID:

• Despite stay and pandemic SOPs, the Magistrate dismissed the complaint for default (April 2021) due to Sarkar’s absence (he was COVID-positive).  

4. Procedural Confusion:  

• Sessions Judge revived the complaint (2022), citing improper dismissal.  
• High Court quashed revival (2024), misinterpreting Section 256 CrPC as mandating accused’s acquittal.  

Supreme Court’s Analysis:

1. Violation of Pandemic SOPs:  

• Judicial Magistrate ignored High Court’s COVID-19 SOP (Nov 2020), which barred dismissal for default without proof of deliberate avoidance.  
• Magistrate dismissed complaint despite stay by High Court, acting without jurisdiction.  

2. Misinterpretation of Section 256 CrPC:  

• Section 256 CrPC mandates acquittal only if the date is fixed for the accused’s appearance. Here, the date was for complainant’s show-cause.  
• High Court erred in equating dismissal for default with acquittal.  

3. Factual Errors by High Court:  

• High Court mistakenly believed Sarkar filed the revision petition (CRR No. 2327/2018), when it was the respondents.  
• Sessions Judge’s order restoring the complaint was valid, but High Court invalidated it erroneously.  

4. Hierarchy of Courts:  

•   High Court wrongly held Sessions Judge could not review its earlier observation. Supreme Court clarified lower courts can correct procedural errors.  

5. Judgment:  

• Revival of Complaint: Supreme Court set aside High Court’s 2024 order, restoring the complaint.  
• Remand to High Court: Directed High Court to re-examine CRR No. 2327/2018 (challenging summons) within 6 months.  
• Procedural Fairness: Emphasized strict adherence to SOPs during emergencies and correct statutory interpretation.  

Key Takeaways:

• Section 256 CrPC: Acquittal under this section applies only when the date is fixed for the accused’s appearance. Dismissal for default ≠ acquittal.  
• Judicial Discretion During Emergencies: Courts must balance procedural rigidity with fairness, especially during crises like COVID-19.  
• Hierarchy & Jurisdiction: Lower courts (Sessions Judge) can correct procedural lapses; High Courts must avoid factual misinterpretations.  
• Legal Remedies: Complainants can challenge dismissal via revision petitions (Section 397 CrPC) or inherent powers (Section 482 CrPC).

  Unlawful Religious Conversion A Serious Offence, Court Can't Quash Proceedings Based On Settlement Between Parties: Allahabad HC  

a. Case Title:

• Taufik Ahmad vs. State of U.P. and Another  

b. Court:

• High Court of Judicature at Allahabad  

c. Date of Decision:

• March 27, 2025  

d. Bench:

• Hon’ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan, J.  

Facts:

• The applicant (Taufik Ahmad) sought quashing of charges related to rape, unlawful confinement, and forced religious conversion.  
• The victim alleged she was coerced into converting to Islam, detained for six months, and sexually assaulted.  
• The parties later entered into a compromise and requested the court to quash the proceedings. 

Key Issues

Whether criminal proceedings under Section 376 IPC (rape) and Section 3/4(1) of the U.P. Conversion Prevention Act, 2020 (unlawful conversion) can be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. based on a compromise between the accused and the victim.

Legal Principles Discussed:

• Section 482 Cr.P.C.: Grants inherent powers to the High Court to secure justice, prevent abuse of process, or ensure compliance with court orders.  
• Non-Compoundable Offenses: Serious crimes like rape (Section 376 IPC) are non-compoundable and cannot be settled privately.  
• Societal Impact: Offenses affecting public morality (e.g., rape, forced conversion) are not merely private disputes. Courts must prioritize societal interests over individual settlements.

Precedents Cited:

• Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab: Quashing under Section 482 is impermissible for heinous crimes like rape. 
• State of M.P. vs. Laxmi Narayan: Compromises cannot override societal interest in prosecuting serious offenses.
• Shimbhu vs. State of Haryana: Rape is a crime against society; compromise cannot justify quashing.  

Court’s Reasoning:

• Rape (Section 376 IPC): A grave offense with societal repercussions. Compromise does not erase its severity or trauma.  
• U.P. Conversion Prevention Act, 2020: Conversion solely for marriage without genuine belief is unlawful. Such acts undermine religious freedom and public order.  
• Section 482 Cr.P.C.: Inherent powers cannot be used to bypass statutory restrictions on compounding serious offenses.  

Decision:

The application was dismissed. The court refused to quash proceedings, emphasizing that societal justice outweighs private settlements in cases involving heinous crimes.  

Key Takeaways:

• Compoundable vs. Non-Compoundable Offenses: Non-compoundable offenses (e.g., rape, murder) cannot be settled privately.  
• Scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C.: Limited to securing justice, not overriding statutory prohibitions.  
• Public Interest Doctrine: Courts prioritize societal welfare over individual compromises in serious crimes.