MADURAI: Expressing shock upon learning that legal proceedings in a criminal case was stalled for nearly 12 years due to non-service of summons to the accused, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court recently blamed the judiciary and the police for failing to make any alternative attempt to serve the summons all these years. The court advised both to work in tandem and ensure utilisation of the e-summon mobile application to prevent a repeat of such “anomalies”.
Justice B Pugalendhi made the above observation recently on an elderly man’s petition seeking to quash a harassment case filed against him by the Dindigul police based on his daughter-in-law’s complaint in 2013. The police filed a final report in the case the same year and it was taken on file on June 18, 2013. However, the petitioner said he was unaware of the pendency of the case till notice was served to him on June 4, 2025.
When the judge tried to ascertain what led to the delay, he noted from court records that the police made several failed attempts to serve the summons but mechanically reported that summons was ‘not served’ without filing any sworn affidavit detailing the steps taken.
The judicial magistrate concerned had also repeatedly issued directions for fresh summons without even trying to cull out the reason for non-service or resorting to alternative modes of service, like affixing the summons at the residence of the accused, which are prescribed under the relevant rules, the judge said.
Once this lapse was pointed out, the police responded by initiating disciplinary proceedings against the errant officials, the judge said, adding that a similar response is expected from the judiciary as well.
Noting that the state DGP has issued a communication to all police personnel on August 13, 2025, instructing them to use e-summon mobile application, the judge said, “If this is properly implemented, then this type of anomaly would not repeat again.” He directed the DGP, registrar general and registrar IT of the court to work in tandem and ensure immediate implementation of e-summons.
Further, the judge refused to quash the petitioner’s case and instead directed the trial court to conclude the trial within three months.
