The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court directed the Chief Secretary, Home Secretary, Director General of Police, Chief Secretary and Registrar (IT) of the High Court to work in tandem to ensure immediate and strict compliance with e-summons.
The court was hearing a petition filed by Ramasamy of Dindigul district. The petitioner’s daughter-in-law filed a complaint against him in 2013. Based on the complaint, a case was filed. After the investigation, the final report was submitted and received on file by the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate at Vedasandur in Dindigul District.
The petitioner, who was unaware of the remand proceedings for all these years, stated that he learned about it only in June of this year, when he was served with the summons. He requested a stay of proceedings against him.
Justice B. Pugalendhi noted that the court was surprised that the case, which was placed on the docket in 2013, resulted in the service of summons only in June 2025. While the allegations may or may not be substantiated, the fact remains that the trial was delayed for 12 years due to non-service of summons. The delay is due to shortages both on the part of the police and on the part of the court office.
Referring to Tamil Nadu Police Standing Order No. 715, the court pointed out that it clearly imposes a statutory duty on the Station House Officer and Circle Inspector to ensure that summonses are served expeditiously and if not, the reasons are explained in writing and communicated to both the Police Inspector and the Judicial Magistrate. In this case, the mandate was violated because subpoenas could languish without any report for years.
Section 67 of the BNSS provides for substitute service if normal service is unsuccessful. The police did not attempt to place a summons at the accused’s residence, nor did the magistrates’ court or registry consider using this legal remedy. Instead, the court mechanically issued a new summons without addressing the failure of earlier service, the court noted.
Rule 29 (11) of the Criminal Procedure Code 2019 provides that any unsuccessful attempt at service must be accompanied by an affidavit detailing the steps taken. It allows the court to verify that due diligence has been exercised and that legal enforcement action (such as substitutive service or even an injunction) is warranted. Unfortunately, this rule was completely ignored in the present case. The summons was mechanically reported as “not served”, without any police affidavit, and the magistrate mechanically issued a new summons without insisting on compliance with this rule, the court said.
These three provisions constitute a complete procedural safeguard against delays in service of summons. They define the accountability structure between the police and the court registry. Their aim is to ensure that the service of the summons, which is the starting point of the trial, is not reduced to a meaningless ritual. In this case, however, both institutions failed to fulfill their obligations, resulting in a 12-year stagnation of proceedings, the court said.
Considering the procedure of the DGP, according to which all the police officers were instructed to use the e-summoning mobile application, the court observed that if the same was properly implemented, this type of anomaly would not be repeated in the future.
The court itself found that the delay in serving the summons to the petitioner/accused cannot be a ground for quashing the proceedings, especially when the main trial has commenced. The court gave the petitioner the opportunity to present his reasons at the court of first instance and disposed of the petition.
Published – 22 Oct 2025 20:12 IST
