Madras High Court Pulls Up Police And Judiciary Over 12-Year Delay In Serving Summons; Orders Strict Compliance With E-Summon System
The High Court expressed serious concern over a 12-year delay in serving summons to an accused in a criminal case, directing the State and Judiciary to ensure full implementation of the e-summon system to prevent recurrence of such lapses.
Justice B. Pugalendhi, Madras High Court, Madurai Bench
The Madras High Court came down heavily on the police and judicial officers for allowing a criminal case to remain stagnant for over twelve years due to repeated non-service of summons on the accused.
The Court was hearing a criminal original petition filed by a senior citizen seeking to quash the proceedings pending before the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, where the trial had been delayed since 2013 solely due to failure in serving summons.
A Bench comprising Justice B. Pugalendhi, while rejecting the plea for quashing, observed that “while the allegations may or may not be substantiated, the fact remains that the trial has been stalled for 12 years on account of non-service of summons.”. This delay, the Bench remarked, “is attributable to lapses both on the part of the Police and on the part of the Court Registry.”
The petitioner was represented by Advocate S. Sarvagan Prabhu, while Public Prosecutor Hasan Mohamed Jinnah appeared for the respondents.
Background
The case originated from a 2013 complaint lodged by the petitioner’s daughter-in-law under Sections 294(b), 506(i) of the IPC, and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1998. After investigation, the charge sheet was filed the same year, but the trial made no progress due to persistent non-service of summons.
The petitioner, unaware of the proceedings for over a decade, received summons only in June 2025, after which he appeared before the trial court and filed the present petition to quash the case.
Taking note of the extraordinary delay, the High Court called for the B-Diary extract of the case and sought an explanation from both the Superintendent of Police and the Judicial Magistrate.
The B-Diary revealed that between 2013 and 2025, the Magistrate’s court had issued multiple summons, but none had been effectively served. Summons were either lost, ignored, or not returned by police personnel, leading to repeated adjournments year after year.
The Superintendent of Police’s report confirmed that several officials, including a Special Sub-Inspector and a Head Constable, failed to execute the summons, and disciplinary action had been initiated against them under the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1995 and Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978
Court’s Observation
The Madras High Court, after analysing the record, held both the Police Department and the Judicial System responsible for the inordinate delay.
The High Court pointed out that while the Police had failed to execute the summons or return them with explanations, the Magistrate had also failed to verify whether the summons had been served or to invoke alternative statutory mechanisms.
“The B-Diary shows repeated directions for issuance of summons, but 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. Equally, the Police, despite receipt of summons, failed to cause service in time or return them properly,” the Court noted.
The Court referred to Tamil Nadu Police Standing Order No. 715, which mandates maintenance and periodic inspection of process registers for summons service, and emphasised that this duty had been completely ignored.
The Bench also referred to Section 67 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which allows substituted service of summons when ordinary methods fail, and Rule 29(11) of the Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019, requiring police to file an affidavit of service detailing efforts made.
The Court lamented that these three provisions exist “to ensure that service of summons, which is the starting point of trial, is not reduced to a meaningless ritual”. However, the Court noted that “in the present case, both institutions have failed in their respective obligations, thereby resulting in a 12-year stagnation of proceedings.”
Justice Pugalendhi further underscored the duty of judicial officers to ensure compliance, stating that the “Judiciary is also having certain responsibility in ensuring the rule of law”, stressing that “it is not enough to issue directions mechanically; compliance must be verified and, when necessary, statutory alternatives like substituted service must be resorted to.”
The Court further noted that the Director General of Police (HoPF) had issued a circular instructing all police personnel to use the e-summon mobile application to streamline service of court summons, and directed the Registrar General and Registrar (IT) of the High Court to coordinate with the DGP to ensure immediate compliance.
Conclusion
While refusing to quash the pending case, the Court directed that the trial be concluded within three months, granting liberty to the petitioner to raise all his legal defences before the trial court.
The Bench directed the Director General of Police, the Registrar General, and the Registrar (IT) of the Madras High Court to implement and monitor the e-summon system to ensure that such administrative failures do not recur.
Cause Title: Ramasamy v. The State of Tamil Nadu & Others
Appearances
Petitioner: S. Sarvagan Prabhu, Advocate
Respondents: Hasan Mohamed Jinnah, Public Prosecutor, assisted by T. Senthilkumar, Additional Public Prosecutor; Veerakathiravan, Additional Advocate General, assisted by F. Deepak, Special Government Pleader