The Delhi High Court has held that summons, arrest warrants or proclamations issued at an address where an accused does not ordinarily reside cannot constitute valid service or execution of process. Consequently, failure to appear pursuant to such process cannot attract an offence under Section 174A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) or Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
Justice Girish Kathpalia, while quashing an FIR registered against Tajinder Mohan Singh following his declaration as an absconder in a cheque dishonour case, emphasised that trial courts must objectively examine service reports before concluding that an accused is deliberately avoiding court proceedings.
The Court also issued directions to criminal courts across Delhi to prevent accused persons from being wrongly declared absconders on the basis of summons or warrants issued at incorrect addresses.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose from a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against Tajinder Mohan Singh.
The trial court took cognizance of the complaint on July 31, 2018, and issued summons to Singh at two addresses in Ludhiana.
The summons returned unserved. On January 11, 2019, the trial court took up the matter on its own and ordered bailable warrants after observing that Singh appeared to be deliberately avoiding service.
However, the reports accompanying the warrants specifically stated that Singh had neither been residing nor working at the given addresses for approximately four years.
Despite these reports, the trial court issued non-bailable warrants and subsequently initiated proclamation proceedings under Section 82 CrPC.
On January 29, 2024, Singh was declared an absconder, leading to the registration of FIR No. 335/2024 at Police Station Kalkaji under Section 174A IPC.
Singh approached the High Court seeking quashing of the FIR.
Arguments Before the High Court
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the trial court had proceeded against Singh at addresses where he had not lived or worked since 2018.
It was submitted that the satisfaction required under Section 82 CrPC must be objective rather than subjective. The petitioner also pointed out that the underlying cheque dishonour complaint had already been disposed of following a compromise.
Opposing the petition, the State argued that determining whether Singh had been properly served or was residing at the addresses concerned required a full trial. The prosecution maintained that the High Court should not conduct a mini-trial while exercising its inherent powers.
Service Must Be at the Address Where the Accused Ordinarily Resides
Examining the provisions governing summons, warrants and proclamations under the CrPC and BNSS, the High Court emphasised the legislative requirement concerning the place where an accused ordinarily resides.
The Court observed:
“In other words, if the summons or warrants or proclamation are directed to a place where the person concerned does not ordinarily reside, there cannot be a valid service of summons or execution of warrants or publication of proclamation.”
It further held:
“And consequently in such a case, it cannot be said that the person concerned fell in default and thereby, committed an offence under Section 174A IPC or Section 209 BNS.”
The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Inder Mohan Goswami & Anr. vs State of Uttaranchal & Ors., which emphasised that courts must exercise caution while issuing arrest warrants because of their serious implications for personal liberty.
It also referred to Sanjabij Tari vs Kishore S. Borcar & Anr., in which the Supreme Court issued directions concerning service of summons in cheque dishonour complaints, including service through electronic means.
Trial Court Ignored Clear Reports About Incorrect Addresses
After examining the trial court record, the High Court found that the magistrate had repeatedly proceeded against Singh despite reports showing that he was not residing or working at either address.
The Court particularly questioned the trial court’s decision to take up the matter suo motu on January 11, 2019, shortly after ordering fresh summons.
It found no material supporting the conclusion that Singh was deliberately avoiding service.
The Court observed:
“There was no material before the trial court to hold that the petitioner was avoiding service of summons.”
The High Court also noted that the trial court appeared to have relied on the court staff’s reports rather than personally examining the reports submitted by process servers and police officials.
Rejecting the State’s argument that the issue required a trial, the Court held that the existing record itself established that the addresses supplied in the complaint were incorrect.
Heavy Pendency Cannot Justify Declaring Accused Absconders
The High Court cautioned that the pressure of pending criminal cases cannot justify hastily declaring accused persons absconders.
Justice Kathpalia observed:
“But that cannot be accepted as a valid justification for any court to proceed post-haste towards declaring an accused as absconder.”
The Court stressed that the procedural safeguards governing service of summons, execution of warrants and publication of proclamations protect innocent persons from the harsh consequences of criminal proceedings.
It also noted that these safeguards prevent complainants from supplying false addresses to obtain proclamation orders and consequential FIRs under Section 174A IPC.
High Court Issues Directions to Criminal Courts
To prevent similar situations, the High Court directed all courts dealing with criminal trials in Delhi to strictly follow these requirements:
- Courts must not declare an accused an absconder or proclaimed offender merely because of heavy pendency, without cogent grounds showing deliberate avoidance of summons or warrants.
- At the beginning of a complaint case, the complainant must furnish an affidavit specifying the accused’s correct ordinary residential address and other addresses where electronic summons can be served.
- Findings regarding service of summons and execution of warrants must be supported by written reasons based on an objective examination of the record by the presiding judge.
- Where service reports indicate that an accused does not reside or work at the stated address, the complainant must provide cogent evidence establishing that the accused ordinarily resides there.
- Before concluding that an accused is deliberately avoiding service or execution of process, the presiding judge must personally examine the relevant reports submitted by the process server or police official.
FIR Quashed, Judgment to Be Circulated Across Delhi Courts
Allowing Singh’s petition, the High Court concluded that he had been wrongly declared an absconder.
The Court held:
“In view of the above discussion, I have no hesitation to hold that the petitioner was wrongly declared as absconder and consequently, the impugned FIR cannot survive.”
Accordingly, the Court quashed FIR No. 335/2024 registered at Police Station Kalkaji under Section 174A IPC, along with all proceedings arising from it.
The Court further directed that its judgment be transmitted through the Registrar General to all Principal District and Sessions Judges in Delhi and the Delhi Judicial Academy for circulation among courts dealing with criminal trials, ensuring strict compliance with its directions.
Case Details
Case Title: Tajinder Mohan Singh v. The State (Government of NCT of Delhi)
Case No.: CRL.M.C. 500/2025 & CRL.M.A. 2359/2025
Bench: Justice Girish Kathpalia
Date: October 9, 2026
