The Delhi High Court set aside an FIR registered under Section 174A IPC after finding that the petitioner was wrongly declared an absconder due to defective service of summons and warrants. The judgment underscores that proceedings under Section 82 CrPC must be based on an objective verification of the accused’s ordinary residence and that courts cannot rely on mechanical assumptions of deliberate evasion.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Tajinder Mohan Singh, was arrayed as accused in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. He was declared an absconder vide order dated 29.01.2024, leading to the registration of FIR No.335/2024 of PS Kalkaji for an offence under Section 174A IPC. The sole ground for challenging the FIR was that the summons and warrants were sent to addresses where the petitioner neither resided nor worked, and thus the declaration of absconder was legally unsustainable.
Key Facts
- The complaint case under Section 138 NI Act was first listed before the trial court on 19.08.2017.
- The trial court took cognizance of the offence on 31.07.2018 and issued summons returnable on 09.01.2019.
- The petitioner’s Aadhar Card shows his address as House No.2085, Dhandra Road, Durg Basant Avenue, Ludhiana.
- The memo of parties in the complaint case mentions two addresses: House No.34, Sector 5, Guru Gian Vihar, Model Town, Ludhiana and 4075, Daba Road, Shimla Puri, Ludhiana.
- The petitioner has placed on record that since 2018 he has not resided or worked at either of the two addresses mentioned in the memo.
Procedural History
- 19.08.2017: Complaint under Section 138 NI Act first listed before trial court.
- 31.07.2018: Trial court took cognizance and issued summons returnable on 09.01.2019.
- 09.01.2019: Matter came up; summons had not returned; fresh summons ordered returnable on 09.07.2019.
- 11.01.2019, 16:08: Trial court took up matter suo motu, observed summons returned unserved, declared petitioner deliberately avoiding service, and issued bailable warrants returnable on 09.07.2019.
- 09.07.2019: Bailable warrants returned unexecuted; trial court (without basis) declared deliberate avoidance and issued non-bailable warrants returnable on 20.11.2019.
- 20.11.2019: Non-bailable warrants returned unexecuted; trial court (without basis) declared deliberate avoidance and ordered process under Section 82 CrPC, posting matter to 12.05.2020 for recording statement of Process Server.
- 23.06.2022: Magistrate recorded that previous process not received back; fresh process under Section 82 CrPC ordered returnable on 23.02.2023.
- 23.02.2023: Trial court held process under Section 82 CrPC stood executed; Process Server summoned for statement on 22.11.2023.
- 22.11.2023: Process Server’s statement recorded.
- 29.01.2024: Statement recorded; petitioner declared absconder; SHO directed to register FIR under Section 174A IPC.
- 29.01.2024: FIR No.335/2024 of PS Kalkaji registered.
- 28.09.2026: Judgment reserved.
- 09.10.2026: Judgment pronounced.
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioner: Contended that the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed because the address on which summons were sent was not his correct address; he had not resided or worked at the Ludhiana addresses since 2018; under Section 82 CrPC the court’s satisfaction must be objective, not subjective; the underlying Section 138 NI Act complaint had already been disposed of as compromised.
For the Respondent: Opposed the petition, submitting that the question of proper service and residence is a matter of trial; while exercising inherent powers the High Court must not conduct a mini-trial; residence can be proved only through a full dress trial.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of FIR No.335/2024 of PS Kalkaji for offence under Section 174A IPC and consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether an FIR under Section 174A IPC can be sustained when the summons and warrants leading to the declaration of absconder were sent to addresses where the accused did not ordinarily reside, and whether the trial court could declare the petitioner an absconder without an objective verification of his residence and without recording reasons for such a finding.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the procedural safeguards embedded in Chapter VI of the CrPC and the corresponding provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). It emphasized that service of summons, execution of warrants, and publication of proclamation must be connected with the house where the person ordinarily resides.
"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."
The Court relied on Inder Mohan Goswami & Anr vs State of Uttaranchal & Ors., (2007) 12 SCC 1, which cautioned that warrants should issue only after proper scrutiny of facts and complete application of mind, given the serious ramifications of such proceedings. It also referred to Sanjabij Tari vs Kishore S. Borcar & Anr., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2069, which issued directions for proper service of summons in Section 138 NI Act cases.
The Court found that the trial court proceeded post-haste, issuing fresh summons, bailable and non-bailable warrants, and finally proclamation, without examining whether the processes were addressed at the place where the petitioner ordinarily resides. Despite clear and specific reports from the Process Server and police officials that the petitioner was not residing or working at the given addresses for about four years, the trial court mechanically held that the petitioner was deliberately avoiding arrest, without recording any basis or reasons.
Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner was wrongly declared an absconder and the impugned FIR could not survive.
The Verdict
The petition is allowed. FIR No.335/2024 of PS Kalkaji for offence under Section 174A IPC, as well as all proceedings arising out of the same, are quashed. No monetary relief, compensation, or costs were awarded.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Objective Verification of Address Is Mandatory
- Courts must verify the accused’s ordinary residence before issuing summons, warrants, or proclamation under Section 82 CrPC.
- Reliance on addresses supplied by the complainant without independent corroboration is insufficient.
Reasons Must Be Recorded in Writing
- At each stage - service, execution, proclamation - the trial court must record reasons based on an objective examination of the record.
- Mechanical or subjective conclusions of deliberate evasion are impermissible.
No Mini-Trial Under Inherent Powers
- The High Court cannot substitute its own inquiry for a full trial when the dispute hinges on factual questions such as residence.
- The proper forum for resolving such factual disputes is the trial court, not revision under inherent powers.
Safeguards Against Mala Fide Complaints
- The judgment reinforces that the procedural rigour of Section 82 CrPC also protects accused persons from false addresses furnished by mischievous complainants.
- Complainants may be called upon to furnish affidavits of correct address and proof of service via electronic means.
