Ramasamy Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Vadamadurai Police Station, Dindigul District and others [Crl. O.P.(MD) No.13075 of 2025]
The petitioner contended that he was completely unaware of the pendency of the criminal proceedings for nearly twelve years and came to know of the case only upon service of summons in June 2025, after which he entered appearance before the trial Court. It was further submitted that the complainant was not inclined to pursue the matter and therefore continuation of the prosecution would serve no useful purpose. The Court, however, was struck by the fact that a case taken on file in 2013 resulted in service of summons only in 2025, and therefore called for the B- Diary of the trial Court as well as a report from the Superintendent of Police explaining the prolonged non-service of summons.
On examination of the B-Diary, the Court found that for years together, the case was repeatedly adjourned only for issuance of fresh summons, with endorsements that the accused was absent or that summons were not duly served, without any meaningful progress. The report of the Superintendent of Police revealed that summons was either not received, not acted upon by the concerned police officials, or not served due to the pandemic, and disciplinary action had been initiated against the erring personnel. A report from the Judicial Magistrate indicated that the present Magistrate had joined only in April 2025 and had thereafter acted promptly.
The Court observed that the trial had remained stalled for twelve years solely due to non-service of summons, and that the delay was attributable both to lapses on the part of the police machinery and the failure of the Court registry and the trial Court to ensure effective service. The Court noted that despite repeated directions for issuance of summons, there was no verification as to whether summons was actually served, no explanation was sought for non-service, and no alternative statutory measures were invoked. The police, on their part, failed to properly serve or return summons with reasons.
The Court referred to the relevant procedural framework governing service of summons, including the obligations under the police standing orders, the provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 relating to substituted service, and the requirement under the Criminal Rules of Practice for returning unserved summons with an affidavit detailing the steps taken. These provisions, according to the Court, are intended to prevent exactly such stagnation of criminal proceedings, but were completely ignored in the present case, resulting in a breakdown of accountability between the police and the Court. While strongly expressing concern over the institutional failure and emphasizing the responsibility of both the police and the judiciary to ensure that criminal trials are not reduced to a mechanical exercise, the Court also noted the steps initiated by the authorities to prevent recurrence of such lapses, including disciplinary action and the introduction of e- summons.
Admission of inordinate delay in service of summons on the petitioner
While disposing of the case, the Court held that though there was an admitted and inordinate delay in service of summons on the petitioner, that by itself could not be a ground to quash the criminal proceedings, especially when the trial had already commenced and charges had been framed. The Court therefore declined to quash the proceedings, granted liberty to the petitioner to raise all his grounds before the trial Court, and directed that the trial Court shall proceed with the case uninfluenced by any observations made and conclude the trial within a stipulated period.
