In a strongly worded judgment delivered on 14 October 2025, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, presided over by Justice B. Pugalendhi, exposed grave administrative and procedural lapses that led to a staggering 12-year delay in serving summons upon an accused in a 2013 criminal case. The Court described this delay as a “shocking lapse” reflecting failures on the part of both the police machinery and the judicial system.
The case, Ramasamy v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors., demonstrates how a simple procedural step—service of summons—when mishandled, can paralyse the justice delivery system, deny expeditious trial rights, and erode public confidence in institutions.
Through this order, the Court not only called out systemic inefficiency but also issued far-reaching directions to ensure accountability and technological reform in the service of court processes.
Background of the Case
The Complaint and Proceedings
The petitioner, Ramasamy, a senior citizen, faced charges under Sections 294(b) and 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act. The complaint was lodged by his daughter-in-law, Rajathi, on 2 April 2013, following which the Vadamadurai Police Station in Dindigul District registered Crime No. 80 of 2013.
After investigation, the police filed a charge sheet, which was taken on file as C.C. No. 128 of 2013 by the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Vedasandur, on 18 June 2013.
The 12-Year Silence
Despite the case being on record since 2013, the first summons was served on the petitioner only on 4 June 2025, marking a gap of twelve long years between the filing of the charge sheet and service of process. The petitioner, upon receiving the summons, appeared before the Magistrate, was supplied with copies, and charges were framed in June 2025.
Thereafter, he approached the High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, seeking quashing of the proceedings, citing the inordinate delay and non-pursuit of the case by the complainant.
Court’s Concern: How Did a Case Remain Dormant for Twelve Years?
The Court was visibly disturbed upon learning that a criminal case had remained dormant for more than a decade solely due to non-service of summons. Justice Pugalendhi termed this situation “surprising” and indicative of institutional failure.
To understand the cause of the delay, the Court called for:
- The B-Diary extract from the Judicial Magistrate’s Court, Vedasandur.
- A report from the Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District, explaining why the summons were not served for 12 years.
The findings from both sources exposed serious negligence, procedural ignorance, and a lack of accountability on multiple levels.
The B-Diary Extract: A Record of Repeated Mechanical Actions
The B-Diary, a chronological record of all proceedings in a trial court, revealed a repetitive and almost ritualistic pattern of entries from 2015 to 2025. Nearly every entry stated:
“Accused absent. Issue fresh summons. Call on [next date].”
This cycle continued dozens of times—from 2015 until June 2025—without any effective verification of service or escalation to coercive measures.
Even during the COVID-19 lockdown years (2020–2022), the case was merely reposted repeatedly due to “pandemic situation,” further prolonging stagnation. The Magistrate’s Registry and the police station appeared to be functioning in isolation, without cross-checking the status of service or following mandatory procedural safeguards.
Police Report: Negligence and Inaction
The report filed by the Superintendent of Police, Dindigul, painted an equally dismal picture. The major findings included:
- No summons was received from the court until 2018.
- The first summons (2018) was received by a Special Sub-Inspector named Kuppannan, but it was neither accounted for nor acted upon.
- The second summons (2021) remained unserved, purportedly due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
- The third summons (2024) was entrusted to Head Constable Clara, but she failed to serve it.
- Only the fourth summons, in June 2025, was finally served.
Consequently, the police initiated disciplinary action against the erring officials under the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1995, and the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978.
Judicial Accountability: Court Registry’s Role Questioned
Justice Pugalendhi didn’t spare the judiciary either. While acknowledging that the current presiding Magistrate had joined only in April 2025 and acted promptly thereafter, the High Court noted that the judicial machinery had failed for more than a decade.
Repeated directions to “issue fresh summons” were recorded without any attempt to verify:
- Whether summons were actually issued or dispatched;
- Whether returns were received from the police; or
- Why service had failed multiple times.
The Court emphasised that the mechanical issuance of summons without verification undermines the purpose of the criminal process and violates both statutory duties and procedural fairness.
Legal Framework on Service of Summons
Justice Pugalendhi’s judgment meticulously referred to three key legal provisions that define and regulate service of summons in criminal proceedings.
1. Tamil Nadu Police Standing Order No. 715
Under this Standing Order:
- Each police station must maintain a process register for all court communications.
- The Station House Officer and Circle Inspector must verify entries every two months.
- They must report any delays or omissions to the Superintendent of Police and the concerned Judicial Magistrate.
In this case, the Standing Order was completely disregarded, as summons were neither entered properly nor followed up for years.
2. Section 67 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
Section 67 of the BNSS provides for substituted service when ordinary methods fail:
“If service cannot, by due diligence, be effected as provided, the serving officer shall affix one of the duplicates of the summons to some conspicuous part of the house where the person ordinarily resides; and the Court may declare that the summons has been duly served or order fresh service.”
Justice Pugalendhi observed that this statutory safeguard was never invoked, despite repeated failures. Both the police and the Magistrate ignored the option of affixture or alternative service.
3. Rule 29(11) of the Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019
This rule mandates that if the police fail to serve summons, they must return it with an affidavit detailing the steps taken for service. The affidavit ensures transparency and helps the court determine whether due diligence was exercised.
However, in this case, the police returned summons merely marked as “not served,” with no supporting affidavit—a clear violation of Rule 29(11).
Court’s Analysis: “A Collective Failure of Institutions”
Justice Pugalendhi held that the three procedural layers—Standing Orders, BNSS provisions, and Criminal Rules of Practice—together form a “complete procedural safeguard” designed to prevent precisely such delays.
By failing to adhere to these norms, both institutions—the police and the judiciary—had abdicated their statutory obligations, resulting in a 12-year stagnation of the trial.
The Court described this as:
“These three provisions — Standing Order 715, Section 67 of the BNSS, and Rule 29(11) of the Criminal Rules of Practice — form a complete procedural safeguard against delays in service of summons… However, in the present case, both institutions have failed in their respective obligations, thereby resulting in a 12-year stagnation of proceedings.”
The judgment thus transforms an individual grievance into a systemic audit, exposing how procedural neglect can paralyse justice itself.
Directions Issued by the High Court
1. Disciplinary Action
The Court took note of ongoing disciplinary proceedings initiated by the police against the delinquent officers and appreciated the steps taken under relevant service rules. It was observed that institutional accountability must be ensured, and similar measures must extend to judicial officers and registry staff responsible for monitoring the service of summons.
2. Integration of Technology: e-Summons
The Court referred to a proceeding issued by the Director General of Police (HoPF) in C.No. 44/PCW-WC/SCRB/2024, dated 13 August 2025, mandating the use of an e-Summon Mobile Application for digital transmission, tracking, and acknowledgement of summons.
Justice Pugalendhi directed:
- The Director General of Police,
- The Registrar General, and
- The Registrar (IT) of the Madras High Court
to work in tandem to ensure immediate and strict compliance with the e-summons mechanism. This measure, if effectively implemented, would eliminate paper-based delays and bring transparency to the process.
3. Expeditious Trial
While the Court refused to quash the proceedings—as the trial had finally commenced—it directed the trial court to conclude the case within three months of receiving the order. The petitioner was granted liberty to raise all relevant grounds before the Magistrate during the trial.
Observations on Judicial Responsibility
Justice Pugalendhi made a powerful observation on judicial responsibility, stating that the judiciary must not function mechanically. It must actively verify compliance with its directions and use statutory tools like substituted service when necessary.
The Court reminded judicial officers that issuing summons is not a perfunctory act but the foundation of fair trial. Without effective service, a trial cannot begin, and justice remains suspended indefinitely.
Conclusion
Madras High Court’s decision in Ramasamy v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. serves as a scathing indictment of procedural complacency within both the police and judiciary. It lays bare how institutional inertia can convert the guarantee of a “speedy trial” into an illusion.
By holding both institutions accountable and mandating technological modernisation, Justice Pugalendhi’s judgment marks an important step toward procedural integrity and efficiency in criminal administration.
The title “A Shocking Lapse” aptly captures the Court’s sentiment—reminding every stakeholder in the justice system that diligence, supervision, and technology are indispensable to uphold the rule of law.
Important Link
Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams