"Surprising": Madras High Court On Service Of Summons After 12 Years Of Case Being Filed, Says Institutions Failed In Their Obligations

Justice B. Pugalendhi noted that the delay was attributable to both the police and the court registry. The court said that while the police failed to cause service of summons in time, the Judicial Magistrate also failed to verify whether the summons was issued, and did not call for an explanation for non-service.

The court also took note of the proceedings of the Director General of Police who had instructed all police personnel to utilise the e-summon mobile application. The court directed the Chief Secretary, the Secretary to the Government (Home Dept), the DGP, the Registrar General and the Registrar General (IT) to work in tandem and ensure strict compliance of e-summons.

“A proceedings of the Director General of Police [HoPF] in C.No. 44/PCW-WC/SCRB/2024, dated 13.08.2025, has been produced before this Court, as per which, all the police personnel have been instructed to utilize e-summon mobile application. If this is properly implemented, then this type of anomaly would not repeat again in future. The respondents 3, 4, the Director General of Police [HoPF], the Registrar General and Registrar [IT] of this Court shall work in tandem and ensure the immediate and strict compliance of e-summons,” the court said.

Highlighting the provisions under Tamil Nadu Police Standing Order No. 715, Rule 29(11) of the Criminal Rules of Practice and Section 67 of the BNSS, the court held that the three provisions, together, form a complete procedural safeguard against delay in service of summons. The court noted that the provisions ensured that the service of summons is not reduced to a meaningless ritual.

“These three provisions — Standing Order 715, Section 67 of the BNSS, and Rule 29(11) of the Criminal Rules of Practice — form a complete procedural safeguard against delays in service of summons. They define the accountability structure between the Police and the Court Registry. Their object is to ensure that service of summons, which is the starting point of trial, is not reduced to a meaningless ritual. However, in the present case, both institutions have failed in their respective obligations, thereby resulting in a 12-year stagnation of proceedings,” the court noted.

As per Section 67 of the BNSS, if service cannot be effected, the serving officer shall affix one of the duplicates of the summons to some conspicuous part of the house or the homestead in which the person summoned ordinarily resides and after enquiry, the court may either declare that the summons be duly served or order fresh service.

As per Rule 29(11) of the Criminal Rules of Practice 2019, when the police is not able to serve summons, it shall be returned to the court on the date mentioned in the summons together with an affidavit sworn by the police concerned detailing the steps taken by him for effecting the service of summons.

As per Tamil Nadu Police Standing Order No. 715, a process register shall be maintained in each police station, wherein all processes received from the courts for service or execution shall be entered. As per the standing order, the Inspector of Police should inspect the register once in two months with the corresponding register maintained by the court and report to the superintendent regarding cases involving serious delays or omissions.

The court was hearing a petition filed by a senior citizen seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated by his daughter-in-law, for offences under Sections 294(b), 506(i) IPC and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act. the case was registered on April 2, 2013 and the final report was taken on file on June 18, 2013.

The man submitted that he was unaware of the case and came to know of it only when the summons was served on him on June 4, 2025. It was further submitted that the de facto complainant was the daughter-in-law, who was not inclined to pursue the case and that continuation of prosecution served no purpose.

Surprised on the delay in serving the summons, the court called for a report from the Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District. The report explained that the delay was attributable to officers who received the summons but did not serve the same, and also the COVID-19 pandemic. It was also informed that disciplinary action had been initiated against the delinquent personnel under the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1995 and under the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules 1978.

The court also took note of the report from the Judicial Magistrate, Vedasandur, who informed the court that she had joined duty only in April 2025 and had acted swiftly thereafter.

The court remarked that both the police and the judiciary had failed to perform their obligations in the present case. The court noted that after the lapse was pointed out, the police had respondent by initiating disciplinary proceedings against the erring officials and a similar response was expected from the judiciary as well.

Regarding the present case, the court noted that delay in service of summons, by itself was not a ground for quashing the proceedings, especially when the trial had commenced. The court thus was not inclined to allow the relief claimed and asked the petitioner to raise his ground before the trial court.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. S. Sarvagan Prabhu

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. Hasan Mohamed Jinnah, Public Prosecutor Assisted by Mr. T. Senthilkumar, Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. Veerakathiravan, Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr. F. Deepak, Special Government Pleader

Case Title: Ramasamy v State of Tamil Nadu and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 368

Case No: Crl. OP (MD)No.13075 of 2025