Once a Complaint Is Dismissed for Default, It Amounts to Acquittal—No Restoration Permissible: Calcutta High Court

“Magistrate has no power to review his own order of dismissal... remedy lies only in appeal”— Calcutta High Court held that a complaint dismissed for default under Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure amounts to a legal acquittal, and no provision under law permits its restoration. Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das dismissed the petitioner’s revisional application seeking revival of her complaint, clarifying that the Magistrate, having once dismissed the case, becomes functus officio and cannot re-enter into the merits or procedural restoration of the case.

The Court emphasised that "the legal consequence of a dismissal under Section 256 is the acquittal of the accused, even if the Magistrate does not explicitly use the word ‘acquitted’", and such an order, once passed, "cannot be recalled or reviewed by the Magistrate in absence of any statutory provision."

Dismissal for Default Is Equivalent to Acquittal, Even Without Express Mention

The petitioner, Ritwika Biswas, a university professor, had filed a private complaint under Sections 500, 195, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code alleging a conspiracy and defamation by a real estate developer and others. After initial cognizance was taken in 2020 and the matter was fixed for evidence, the complaint was dismissed for default on 22.07.2024, due to non-appearance of the complainant. The non-appearance was attributed to a clerical mistake in the court’s cause list, where the next date appeared to be “07.08.2024” instead of the actual date “07.03.2024”.

Though the petitioner immediately filed an application for restoration on 30.07.2024, the Magistrate rejected the plea, citing lack of jurisdiction. Upholding that decision, the High Court declared:

“Though the Magistrate’s dismissal order did not expressly record ‘acquittal’, it amounts to deemed acquittal under Section 256 CrPC.”

The Court reasoned that Section 256(1) CrPC empowers a Magistrate to acquit the accused if the complainant fails to appear, and the use of the word "shall acquit" leaves no discretion to restore such cases, especially in absence of any stay or adjournment.

“Inherent Powers Cannot Be Used to Override Express Statutory Bar”—Court Refuses Invocation of Section 482 CrPC

The petitioner invoked Section 482 CrPC and Section 438/442/528 of the new Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking the quashing of the Magistrate’s refusal to restore the complaint. However, the Court was clear that inherent powers cannot be used to override or bypass the express structure laid down in the Code.

Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court observed: “In view of the specific remedy available provided by law, Section 482 CrPC cannot be invoked.”

Citing Pankaj Kumar v. State of Maharashtra, the Court reiterated that inherent powers are not a substitute for appeal, especially when an acquittal order has been passed, even by default.

“The inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the High Court to act according to whim or caprice.”

Referring to Maj. Gen. A.S. Gauraya v. S.N. Thakur, the Court added: “Dismissal of a complaint for non-appearance… is a final order and in absence of any specific provision in the Code, a Magistrate cannot exercise any inherent jurisdiction to restore the case.”

Confusion over Date Accepted, But Legal Remedy Lies in Appeal

The High Court acknowledged that the confusion regarding the date—where “07.08.2024” was mistakenly read instead of “07.03.2024”—was a genuine error. The order noted:

“The possibility of reading it as 07.08.2024 cannot be ruled out… the non-appearance on 07.03.2024 is justified.”

However, despite recognising the factual basis for the absence, the Court held firm on the statutory finality of the dismissal order, declaring that:“In absence of any specific provision for restoration, the Learned Magistrate rightly refused the prayer.”

Justice Das further clarified that: “The Magistrate has not expressly noted the order of acquittal in the order but the consequence of passing of the order of dismissal amounts to acquittal of the accused but not on merit or after assessing evidence.”

As a result, the only legal remedy available to the complainant was to file an appeal under Section 378(4) CrPC after obtaining leave of the court. A revision or restoration plea was not maintainable.

Judicial System Not Powerless—But It Is Bound by Procedure

The decision underscores a key judicial principle: even where procedural error causes genuine hardship, courts must act within the confines of the statutory framework. While the Court acknowledged the petitioner was the “worst sufferer” due to the mistaken date entry, it nonetheless concluded:

“The petitioner is at liberty to move the appropriate Court for ventilating their grievances for having their available legal remedy.”

Revisional Application Dismissed

Concluding its detailed reasoning, the High Court stated: “Accordingly this revisional application stands dismissed.”

The judgment serves as a crucial precedent on the scope of Section 256 CrPC, reinforcing the finality of acquittal by default, and delineating the limits of both a Magistrate’s powers and the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC.

Date of Decision: 24 September 2025