Court directs strict adherence to procedural safeguards in service of summons and warrants to prevent wrongful absconder declarations and related FIRs under IPC Section 174A
In a significant judgment delivered on October 9, 2026, the Delhi High Court, presided over by Justice Girish Kathpalia, quashed the FIR No.335/2024 registered at PS Kalkaji against Tajinder Mohan Singh under Section 174A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court held that the petitioner was wrongly declared an absconder due to improper service of summons and warrants at addresses where he did not ordinarily reside or work. This decision highlights the judiciary's insistence on strict compliance with procedural safeguards to protect personal liberty against mechanical or careless issuance of coercive processes in criminal trials.
The petitioner, Tajinder Mohan Singh, was arrayed as accused in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He was declared absconder by the trial court on January 29, 2024, leading to registration of an FIR against him under Section 174A IPC for failure to appear in compliance with proclamation. The petitioner challenged the FIR, contending that the summons and warrants were sent to two Ludhiana addresses mentioned in the complaint, neither of which was his correct or ordinary residence since 2018.
The trial court had mechanically recorded that the petitioner was deliberately avoiding service and arrest, despite process servers and police officials repeatedly reporting non-residence at the specified addresses. The summons, bailable and non-bailable warrants, and proclamation were all issued and published at these incorrect addresses. The High Court, after examining the digitized trial court records, found that the trial court failed to objectively scrutinize the process server's reports and police returns, relying instead on court staff endorsements without adequate reasoning.
Justice Kathpalia underscored that under both the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), service of summons, execution of warrants, and publication of proclamations must be connected to the place where the person "ordinarily resides." Any process directed at places where the accused does not reside or work cannot be validly served or executed. Consequently, failure to appear pursuant to such defective processes does not constitute an offence under Section 174A IPC or Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
The judgment draws heavily on Supreme Court precedents, including Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal (2007) and Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S. Borcar (2025), which emphasize that warrants should be issued judiciously with proper scrutiny and that complainants must furnish correct addresses and electronic contact details on affidavit. The court reiterated that courts must record objective reasons in writing before issuing coercive processes and should personally examine process server reports rather than mechanically relying on endorsements.
Further, the Court issued important directions to all courts dealing with criminal trials to prevent such miscarriages of justice:
- - Complainants must provide correct residential and electronic addresses of accused persons at the outset.
- - Courts must ensure that findings regarding service and execution of processes are based on objective material and are supported by recorded reasons.
- - Where process returns unexecuted due to incorrect addresses, complainants must produce cogent evidence to establish the accused's residence.
- - Trial courts must personally examine reports of process servers and police officials before concluding that an accused is deliberately avoiding service or arrest.
- - High pendency of criminal cases cannot justify hurried declarations of absconders or proclaimed offenders.
The Court's quashing of the FIR and associated proceedings in this case underscores the judiciary's commitment to uphold due process and safeguard personal liberty, especially in cases arising from cheque dishonour complaints, which often suffer from pendency and procedural lapses.
Copies of the judgment have been directed to be circulated among all Principal District & Sessions Judges of Delhi and the Delhi Judicial Academy to sensitize courts about strict compliance with these procedural safeguards.
Bottom Line:
FIR under Section 174A IPC cannot survive where the accused was declared absconder on the basis of summons, warrants and proclamation sent to addresses where he did not ordinarily reside or work; trial courts must record objective reasons at every stage before issuing coercive process under CrPC/BNSS.
Statutory provision(s):
Section 174A IPC, Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, Sections 62, 64, 65, 82, 87 CrPC, Sections 64, 66, 67, 84, 90 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Section 209 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
Tajinder Mohan Singh v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2993687
