7 months ago
2
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has directed Chief Secretary, Home Secretary, Director General of Police, Registrar General and Registrar (IT) of the High Court to enactment successful tandem and guarantee the contiguous and strict compliance of e-summons.
The tribunal was proceeding a petition filed by Ramasamy of Dindigul district. The petitioner’s daughter-in-law had lodged a ailment against him successful 2013. Based connected the complaint, a lawsuit was registered. After investigation, the last study was filed and taken connected record by District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate astatine Vedasandur successful Dindigul district.
The petitioner, unaware of the pendency of the proceedings each these years, said helium came to cognize of it lone erstwhile summons was served connected him successful June this year. He sought the quashing of the proceedings against him.
Justice B. Pugalendhi observed the tribunal was amazed that a lawsuit which was taken connected record successful 2013 had resulted successful work of summons lone successful June 2025. While the allegations whitethorn oregon whitethorn not beryllium substantiated, the information remains the proceedings had been stalled for 12 years connected relationship of non-service of summons. The hold is attributable to lapses some connected the portion of the constabulary and the tribunal registry.
Referring to the Tamil Nadu Police Standing Order No. 715, the tribunal pointed retired it intelligibly casts a statutory work upon the Station House Officer and the Circle Inspector to guarantee tribunal summons is promptly served and, if not, the reasons are accounted for successful penning and communicated some to the Superintendent of Police and to the Judicial Magistrate. In the contiguous case, the mandate has been breached, since summons was allowed to stagnate without immoderate study for years together.
Section 67 of BNSS provides for substituted work erstwhile mean work is unsuccessful. Neither the constabulary attempted affixture of summons connected the accused’s residence nor did the Judicial Magistrate oregon the Registry see invoking this statutory device. Instead, the tribunal mechanically issued caller summons without applying its caput to the nonaccomplishment of earlier service, the tribunal observed.
Rule 29 (11) of the Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019, makes it mandatory that each failed effort of work indispensable beryllium accompanied by an affidavit detailing the steps taken. It enables the tribunal to verify whether owed diligence was exercised and whether coercive steps nether instrumentality (such arsenic substituted service, oregon adjacent issuance of a warrant) are warranted. Unfortunately, this regularisation was wholly ignored successful the contiguous case. Summons is mechanically reported arsenic ‘not served’, without immoderate sworn affidavit of the police, and the Judicial Magistrate mechanically issued caller summons without insisting connected compliance with this rule, the tribunal observed.
The 3 provisions signifier a implicit procedural safeguard against delays successful work of summons. They specify the accountability operation betwixt constabulary and tribunal registry. Their entity is to guarantee that work of summons, which is the starting constituent of trial, is not reduced to a meaningless ritual. However, successful the contiguous case, some institutions person failed successful their respective obligations, thereby resulting successful a 12-year stagnation of proceedings, the tribunal said.
Taking enactment of the proceedings of the DGP, arsenic per which, each the constabulary unit person been instructed to utilise e-summon mobile application, the tribunal observed that if this was decently implemented, past this benignant of anomaly would not repetition again successful future.
The tribunal held a hold successful the work of summons to the petitioner/accused itself cannot beryllium a crushed for quashing the proceedings particularly erstwhile the proceedings has commenced. The tribunal granted liberty to the petitioner to rise his grounds earlier the proceedings tribunal and disposed of the petition.
