Accused Not To Be Declared Absconders Without Cogent Grounds: Delhi High Court Issues Directions To Trial Courts

The Court issued the directions while quashing an FIR under Section 174A of the Indian Penal Code against a person who had been declared an absconder after summons, warrants and a proclamation were repeatedly sent to addresses where official reports stated that he no longer resided or worked.

The Court was hearing a petition seeking quashing of an FIR registered after the petitioner was declared an absconder in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

A Bench of Justice Girish Kathpalia observed: “At each stage, be it the service of summons or execution of warrants or publication of the proclamation, the trial court has to arrive at findings of service or execution or publication on the basis of an objective examination of record. At each stage, the trial court has to record reasons before holding that the summons stand served or the warrants stand unexecuted or the proclamation was correctly published. While issuing warrants of arrest of a person, the trial court must record reasons in writing which makes the court believe that the person concerned has absconded or will not obey the summons".

"The least a trial court is expected to do is to carefully read report of the Process Server on the returned summons and the serving police official on the returned warrants, instead of simply relying upon the endorsement/report made by the court staff on the ordersheets", the Bench added. 

Advocate Jitender Ratta appeared for the petitioner. Additional Public Prosecutor Amit Ahlawat appeared for the State.

Background

The petitioner had been arrayed as an accused in a cheque-dishonour complaint. The trial court issued summons to the two addresses stated in the complaint and later issued bailable and non-bailable warrants after the summons remained unserved.

The process reports stated that the petitioner had not been residing or working at either address for about four years and had shifted elsewhere. The trial court nevertheless ordered proclamation at the same addresses, subsequently declared him an absconder and directed registration of the impugned FIR.

The petitioner contended that the FIR should be quashed because he had not been residing or working at the addresses to which the process was sent. The State opposed the petition on the ground that whether he resided at those addresses and had been duly served required determination at trial.

Court’s Observations

Process Must Be Directed To Where Accused Ordinarily Resides

The Court examined the provisions governing service of summons, issuance of warrants and publication of proclamations under the CrPC and the corresponding provisions of the BNSS. It held that the statutory scheme emphasised the place where the person summoned ordinarily resided.

The Court observed: “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.”

The Court added that where process was sent to an address at which the person did not ordinarily reside, the person could not be treated as having defaulted or as having committed an offence under Section 174A IPC or Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

Warrants Require Scrutiny And Recorded Reasons

The Court referred to Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal (2007), in which the Supreme Court held that the discretionary power to issue warrants must be exercised judiciously and with extreme care after balancing the accused’s personal liberty against societal interests.

The Court noted that the precedent cautioned against issuing bailable or non-bailable warrants without proper scrutiny and complete application of mind because of their serious consequences. The Court stated that non-bailable warrants should be used to compel appearance only where summons or bailable warrants were unlikely to produce the desired result.

The Court also referred to Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S. Borcar (2025), which directed that summons in cheque-dishonour complaints should also be served through electronic modes using details supplied by the complainant and that the complainant should file an affidavit of service.

Trial Court Repeatedly Used Addresses Reported Incorrect

The Court found that the trial court had proceeded in haste without examining whether the process had been issued to the place where the petitioner ordinarily resided. It noted that shortly after ordering fresh summons, the trial court took up the file on its own and, without stating any basis, concluded that the petitioner was deliberately avoiding service.

The Court observed that both the bailable and non-bailable warrants returned with clear reports that the petitioner was neither residing nor working at the stated addresses. Despite those reports, the trial court again stated without reasons that he was deliberately avoiding arrest and ordered proclamation at the same addresses.

The Court stated: “It seems that the trial court did not peruse the reports of the Process Servers and the police officials on the processes, and preferred to rely solely upon the report of the ahlmad.”

The Court rejected the State’s contention that the petitioner’s residence required a trial. It held that the process reports themselves established that the two addresses given in the complaint were incorrect, if not false, and no trial was required on that issue.

Heavy Pendency Cannot Justify Declaring Accused Absconder

The Court acknowledged the heavy pendency of complaint cases, particularly those under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, but held that it could not justify proceeding in haste to declare an accused an absconder.

The Court observed: “In view of serious consequences that entail the proceedings under Section 82 CrPC, the courts have to be cautious before arriving at findings adverse to the accused persons.”

The Court stated that the statutory safeguards protected innocent persons from the harshness of the law and also checked a complainant who might furnish a false address and procure proclamation proceedings followed by registration of an FIR under Section 174A IPC.

Directions To Criminal Trial Courts

Before parting with this case, the High Court considered it appropriate to remind and direct all the learned courts dealing with criminal trials that henceforth they shall ensure strict adherence with the following directions:

(a) Of course there is heavy pendency of criminal cases awaiting trial, but the courts have to be conscious that the overburdened dockets do not lead to declaring the accused persons absconder, much less Proclaimed Offender unless there are cogent grounds to believe that the concerned accused is deliberately avoiding service of summons or execution of warrants.

(b) At the very inception of the complaint case, the complainant shall be called upon to furnish on affidavit the correct address of the house where the accused ordinarily resides as well as other addresses where summons can be served by electronic means.

(c) The findings related to service of summons and execution of warrants shall be supported by way of reasons to be recorded in writing based on objective analysis of the material on record, carried out personally by the judge presiding over the concerned court.

(d) Where the issued process returns with the report that the accused does not reside or work at the given address, the trial court shall call upon the complainant to submit some cogent evidence to show that the accused ordinarily resides at the address disclosed in the complaint case.

(e) Before recording that the accused is deliberately avoiding service or execution of process, the learned judge presiding over the concerned trial court shall personally examine the report of the Process Server or the concerned police official on the returned summons/warrants.

Conclusion

The Court held that the petitioner had been wrongly declared an absconder. It allowed the petition and quashed the FIR under Section 174A IPC and all consequential proceedings.

The Court directed the Registrar General to transmit the judgment to all Principal District and Sessions Judges in Delhi and to the Delhi Judicial Academy. It ordered circulation of the judgment among all criminal trial courts in Delhi to ensure strict adherence to its directions and prevent a repetition of the circumstances found in the case.

Cause Title: Tajinder Mohan Singh v. The State (Government of NCT of Delhi) (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:8954)

Click here to read/download Judgment