The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, while refusing to quash a 12-year-old criminal proceeding, has strongly censured both the State Police and the subordinate judiciary for a “12-year stagnation” caused by the repeated failure to serve summons on the accused.
In a petition (Crl.OP(MD)No.13075 of 2025) heard by Justice B. Pugalendhi, the Court highlighted systemic lapses that allowed a case filed in 2013 to see summons served only in 2025. While declining to quash the case, the Court directed the trial to be concluded within three months and mandated the strict implementation of the e-summon system.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Mr. Ramasamy, a senior citizen, had approached the High Court seeking to quash the proceedings in CC.No.128 of 2013, pending before the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Vedasandur, Dindigul District.
The case originated from a complaint filed by the petitioner’s daughter-in-law, Ms. Rajathi (Respondent No. 2), on 02.04.2013. The Vadamadurai Police Station registered Cr.No.80 of 2013 for alleged offences under Sections 294(b) (obscene acts/words), 506(i) (criminal intimidation) of the IPC, and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act. A final report was filed and the case was taken on file by the Magistrate’s Court on 18.06.2013.
Petitioner’s Submissions
The counsel for Mr. Ramasamy submitted that the petitioner was “unaware of the pendency of the proceedings all these years” and only came to know of the case when summons was finally served on him on 04.06.2025, nearly 12 years after the case was filed. It was further submitted that the defacto complainant, his daughter-in-law, “is not inclined to pursue the case.”
Court’s Investigation and Analysis
“Surprised” by the submission of a 12-year delay in service, the High Court called for the B-Diary extract of the case and a report from the Superintendent of Police (SP), Dindigul District.
The B-Diary extract revealed a long history of mechanical adjournments from 2015 to 2025, with repeated entries such as “Accused absent. Issue fresh summon” and “Accused summon not duly served.”
The report from the SP, Dindigul District, admitted significant lapses:
- No summons was received from the Court by the police station until 2018.
- A first summons received in 2018 by a Special Sub-Inspector was “neither accounted for nor acted upon.”
- A third summons issued in 2024 entrusted to a Head Constable was “not served.”
- The report confirmed that disciplinary action had been initiated against the “delinquent personnel.”
In his analysis, Justice Pugalendhi observed that “the delay is attributable to lapses both on the part of the Police and on the part of the Court Registry.”
Failure of Procedural Safeguards
The Court identified the specific rules and laws that were breached by both institutions:
- Judicial Lapse: The High Court noted that the learned Judicial Magistrate “has not verified whether the summons were in fact issued, nor called for an explanation for non-service, nor taken recourse to other statutory mechanisms.” The judgment stated the Magistrate’s Court “mechanically issued fresh summons without applying its mind.”
- Police Lapse: The Police, despite eventual receipt of summons, “failed to cause service in time or return them properly.”
- Violation of TN Police Standing Order No. 715: This order, which mandates a “process register” in each police station and regular inspection by the Inspector, was found to have been “breached.”
- Violation of Section 67, BNSS, 2023: The Court pointed out that the statute provides for substituted service (affixing the summons to the house) when ordinary service fails. “However, in this case, neither the Police attempted affixture… nor did the Judicial Magistrate… consider invoking this statutory device.”
- Violation of Rule 29(11), Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019: This rule makes it mandatory for police to return an unserved summons with an “affidavit… detailing the steps taken.” The Court found this rule “has been completely ignored.”
Justice Pugalendhi made a key observation: “These three provisions… form a complete procedural safeguard against delays in service of summons. Their object is to ensure that service of summons… is not reduced to a meaningless ritual. However, in the present case, both institutions have failed in their respective obligations…”
Noting that the police had initiated disciplinary action, the Court added, “A similar response is expected from the Judiciary as well.” The Court admonished, “It is not enough to issue directions mechanically. Compliance must be verified…”
The Court also took note of a DGP proceeding (dated 13.08.2025) regarding the use of an “e-summon mobile application” and directed the Chief Secretary, Home Secretary, DGP, and the High Court’s Registrar General and Registrar (IT) to “work in tandem and ensure the immediate and strict compliance of e-summons.”
Final Decision
Despite the “admitted” delay and the severe procedural lapses, the High Court held that this “cannot be a ground for quashing the proceedings… especially when the trial has commenced.”
The petition to quash was consequently “disposed of.” The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to raise his grounds before the trial Court. The trial Court was directed to proceed with CC.No.128 of 2013 “uninfluenced by any observation in this order” and to “conclude the trial within a period of three months” from the date of receipt of the order.
