Service of Summons under CrPC

 Section 61
Forms of summons.—
Every summons issued by a Court under this Code shall be in writing, in duplicate,
signed by the presiding officer of such Court or by such other officer as the High
Court may, from time to time, by rule direct, and shall bear the seal of the Court.

 Section 62
Summons how served.—
(1) Every summons shall be served by a police officer, or subject to such rules as the
State Government may make in this behalf, by an officer of the Court issuing it or
other public servant.
(2) The summons shall, if practicable, be served personally on the person summoned,
by delivering or tendering to him one of the duplicates of the summons.
(3) Every person on whom a summons is so served shall, if so required by the serving
officer, sign a receipt there for on the back of the other duplicate.

 Section 63
Service of summons on corporate bodies and societies.—
Service of a summons on a corporation may be effected by serving it on the secretary,
local manager or other principal officer of the corporation, or by letter sent by
registered post, addressed to the chief officer of the corporation in India, in which
case the service shall be deemed to have been effected when the letter would arrive in
ordinary course of post.
Explanation.—In this section, "corporation" means an incorporated company or
other body corporate and includes a society registered under the Societies
Registration Act, 1860 (21 of 1860).

 Section 64
 Service when persons summoned cannot be found.—
Where the person summoned cannot, by the exercise of due diligence, be found, the
summons may be served by leaving one of the duplicates for him with some adult
male member of his family residing with him, and the person with whom the summons
is so left shall, if so required by the serving officer, sign a receipt there for on the
back of the other duplicate.
Explanation.— A servant is not a member of the family within the meaning of this
section.

 Section 65
Procedure when service cannot be effected as before provided.—
If service cannot by the exercise of due diligence be effected as provided in section
62, section 63 or section 64, the serving officer shall affix one of the duplicates of the
summons to some conspicuous part of the house or homestead in which the person
summoned ordinarily resides; and thereupon the Court, after making such inquiries
as it thinks fit, may either declare that the summons has been duly served or order
fresh service in such manner as it considers proper.

 Section 66
Service on Government servant.—
(1) Where the person summoned is in the active service of the Government, the Court
issuing the summons shall ordinarily send it in duplicate to the head of the office in
which such person is employed; and such head shall thereupon cause the summons to
be served in the manner provided by section 62, and shall return it to the Court under
his signature with the endorsement required by that section.
(2) Such signature shall be evidence of due service.

 Section 67
Service of summons outside local limits.—
When a Court desires that a summons issued by it shall be served at any place outside
its local jurisdiction, it shall ordinarily send such summons in duplicate to a
 Magistrate within whose local jurisdiction the person summoned resides, or is, to be
there served.

 Section 68
Proof of service in such cases and when serving officer not present.—
(1) When a summons issued by a Court is served outside its local jurisdiction, and in
any case where the officer who has served a summons is not present at the hearing of
the case, an affidavit, purporting to be made before a Magistrate, that such summons
has been served, and a duplicate of the summons purporting to be endorsed (in the
manner provided by section 62 or section 64) by the person to whom it was delivered
or tendered or with whom it was left, shall be admissible in evidence, and the
statements made therein shall be deemed to be correct unless and until the contrary is
proved.
(2) The affidavit mentioned in this section may be attached to the duplicate of the
summons and returned to the Court.

 Section 69
Service of summons on witness by post.—
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the preceding sections of this Chapter, a
Court issuing a summons to a witness may, in addition to and simultaneously with the
issue of such summons, direct a copy of the summons to be served by registered post
addressed to the witness at the place where he ordinarily resides or carries on
business or personally works for gain.
(2) When an acknowledgment purporting to be signed by the witness or an
endorsement purporting to be made by a postal employee that the witness refused to
take delivery of the summons has been received, the Court issuing the summons may
declare that the summons has been duly served.
Important cases

1. State of Sikkim vs M K O Nair

1986 CrLJ 415
o When summons was received by witness, omission of signature by the
presiding officer was held not to be a defect in procedure.

2. The State v Bhimrao,

AIR 1963 Kant 239 : 1963 Cr LJ 293 .
Bench : T Tukol
o It was held that where personal service cannot be effected under section 62 and
extended service under section 64 cannot be secured, the law permits a substituted
service.

3. State vs Driver Mohmed Valli And Ors. on 25 November, 1960

Gujrat High Court

(1961) 2 GLR 222

Bench: N Miabhoy, Bhagwati

o The word ‘issued’ is very important. The issuance of summons is required. In
this case, the court held that the mere making of an order for the issue of
summons is quite different from the issuance of summons.
o “On the whole having regard to the language of Section 247 Criminal
Procedure Code we have come to the conclusion that the issuance of a
summons is a condition precedent to the making of an order of acquittal under
that section and as that condition has not been satisfied in the present case the
provisions of Section 247 were not attracted.”

4. G.Kavitha vs Union Of India on 29 June, 2006

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court

Bench : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.E.N. PATRUDU

o 2. AIR 1989 SC 1949 Court will not strike down the law out of hand but will
examine and ascertain if the statute has laid down any principle or policy for
guiding the exercise of discretion by Government in the matter of selection
and classification, and if no such principle or policy is found, the statute will
be struck down as providing for the delegation of arbitrary or uncontrolled
power to the Government so as to enable it to discriminate between persons
and things similarly situate and together with it any executive action taken
under such law. 
o 6.23 In the instant case, the argument is the provision u/s.64 Cr.P.C. is against
female. No doubt the provision omits the word "female". But, if Section 64 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure says that female should not be allowed to
receive summons in the absence of summoned person then the provision is
directed against female but in this case the provision says only an adult male
member and it means it has omitted the word "female" but there is no specific
bar hence the same can be considered by the legislature to include the word
"female".
o 6.24 The argument of the learned Asst.Solicitor General, though there is no
bar or embargo on women not to receive summons as the Section 64 of the
Cr.P.C. is silent with regard to receiving of summons by women and so being
an adult female member can also receive the summons, needs further
examination because when the statute clearly says that in such circumstances,
only an adult male member alone can receive the summons, how far the
receipt of summons by female member of the female or refusal of the female
member of the family can be treated as legal will have to be examined. 
o 6.25 therefore, to avoid difficulties, the legislature has to apply its mind and
consider representations from various sections of the Society, more
particularly, the respectable women and their respective organisations of the
country, to decide whether section 64 of the Cr.P.C. is discriminatory against
women or embody in their favour. If a mother and son alone are residing in the
house and if son is out of station for any reason, if the summons in a criminal
 case is sought to be served on son and denying the opportunity of receiving the
summons by the mother may create problem. When there is no such restriction
for the mother to receive summons in civil case, I do not understand reason for
denial of the same right in a criminal case. There should be uniformity,
equality in treating both. 
o 6.29 Principles of natural justice, which means that all the parties concerned in
the issue must be heard before taking a final decision i.e. audi alteram partem.
Principles of natural justice is also the requirement of Article 14 of the
Constitution, for natural justice is the antithesis of arbitrariness. Without
hearing all the affected section of the society, finalising any issue will amount
to be denial of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, larger hearing is
necessary in the instant case. At the instance of the petitioner alone, Section
64 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be struck down from the statute
on the ground that it is discriminatory. The Writ of Declaration or direction
cannot be given. However, the first respondent has to consider all the above
aspects and arrive to the best decisions to maintain equality before law and
equal justice between male and female members of the society and also to see
that there shall be no discrimination between both and both are classified and
treated with the same part.

5. Hdfc Bank Limited vs Amit Kumar Singh on 22 May, 2009

High Court of Delhi

Crl REV P No. 296 OF 2009

Bench : THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR

 o It will be seen from the above provision that it is a hybrid of Sections
62 and 69 CrPC. Under Section 62 CrPC summons have to be served upon the
accused personally. Section 144 NI Act in that sense carves out an exception
to Section 62 CrPC since it permits service of summons to both the accused and
the witness by registered post. Under Section 62 CrPC, the Courts have
consistently held that summons to an accused cannot be sent by registered post
but must be to be delivered personally. The relevant decisions in this regard
are Guthikonda Sri Hari Prasada Rao v. Guthikonda Lakshmi Rajyma 1990
CriLJ 1594, S. Bhupinder Singh Makkar v. Narinder Kaur 1990 CriLJ 2265
and Meenaz Moloobhay v. State of Maharashtra 2000 CriLJ 3998. It is only
under Section 69 CrPC that summons to a witness can be sent by registered post.
The language of Sections 144 (2) and 69 (2) NI Act are identical. It is plain
from Section 144(2) that summons to a person, who is arraigned as an accused in
a complaint under Section 138 NI Act, when sent by registered A/D post has to
be followed by placing before the Court either the signed acknowledgement due
card purported to be signed by the addressee, or an endorsement by the postal
department or the courier service that the accused refused to take delivery of the
summons. In the absence of such acknowledgement or endorsement of the postal
authority or the courier services, the Court will not draw a presumption that such
summons have been duly served. In the concerned view of this Court therefore,
the learned MM was in the instant case perfectly justified in insisting that the
complainant should show to the Court either the acknowledgement due card
signed by the addressee or the postal endorsement to the effect that the accused
refused to take delivery of the notice. This will be minimum requirement in
terms of the Section 138(b) that must be satisfied by the complainant to show
that the notice was in fact sent to the accused at the correct address. 

6. Nazrul Islam vs State Of Assam on 14 February, 2008

 Gauhati High Court

2008 (1) GLT 979

Bench: Justice H Sarma

o The manner and method of service of summons has been adequately provided
in Section 62 as well as the aforesaid Rules framed by the High Court. If the
persons summoned cannot be found, he can also be served as per procedure
laid down in Section 64 Cr.P.C. by serving with some adult male member of
his family residing with him. The court while accepting service of summon
upon such member is required to be satisfied to that effect. Before issuing
proclamation against an accused, the mandate of Section 82 is that the court
must have "reasons to believe" that the person against whom warrant has been
issued has absconded or concealing himself so that the warrant cannot be
executed. Only upon arriving at such a satisfaction, the court is empowered to
issue such proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. Law provides for issue of
proclamation against an absconder only. Accordingly it is necessary to
examine when an accused can be said to be an absconder. 
o 18. The word absconder has been interpreted by the Apex Court in the case
of Kartarey and Ors. v. State of U.P. . In the said case, the Apex Court held
that to be an 'absconder' in the eye of law, it is not necessary that a person
should have run away from his home, it is sufficient if he hides himself to
evade the process of law, even if the hiding place be his own home.
(Underscore by me) 

7. Mac Charles (I) Ltd. vs Chandrashekar And Anr., 2005

Karnataka High Court

2006 (1) ALD Cri 44, III (2006) BC 143, 2005 CriLJ 3700, ILR 2005 KAR 3648,
2006 (2) KarLJ 570
Bench: Justice B Padmaraj, Justice C Kumaraswamy

o The issue before this court was “Whether substituted service is permissible in
a criminal case?”
o The court held that:
Section 65 of Cr.P.C. prescribes that if service cannot by the exercise of due
diligence be effected as provided in Sections 62, 63 or 64, the serving officer
shall affix one of the duplicates of the summons to some conspicuous part of
the house or homestead in which the person summoned ordinarily resides; and
thereupon the Court, after making such inquiries as it thinks fit, may either
declare that the summons has been duly served or order fresh service in such
manner as it considers proper. Indisputably the mode of service as prescribed
under Section 65 of Cr.P.C. is substituted service viz., by affixture of one of
the duplicates of the summons to some conspicuous part of the house of the
accused. Such a mode of service of summons to the accused could be resorted
to when the service of summons to the accused in the manner as contemplated
under Sections 62, 63 or 64 cannot be effective. In other words, when the
summons to the accused cannot be served under the due process of law, the
same could be served by substituted method of service as contemplated
under Section 65 of Cr.P.C. No doubt such a mode of service as prescribed
underSection 65 of Cr.P.C could be resorted to only after exhausting the other
mode of service of summons under Sections 62, 63 or 64 and the same having
been found to be ineffective. But the fact of the matter is that the service of
summons to the accused other than the personal service is recognized under
law. That is to say, service of summons to an accused even in criminal trial
could be effected by substituted service by affixture of one of the duplicates of
the summons to some conspicuous part of the house in which the accused
ordinarily resides. There cannot be any dispute that such a mode of service is
recognised under law even in criminal trials. Hence the answer to Question
No. 2 shall be in the affirmative. 
8. Patna High Court

Sanjay Kumar vs State Of Bihar & Anr, 2018

Criminal Miscellaneous No.629 of 2018
Bench : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH

o 14. Where personal service cannot be effected under Section 62 of the CrP.C.
and extended service under Section 64of the Cr.P.C., Patna High Court Cr.M
isc. No.629 of 2018 dt.08-03-2018 12/ 19 the law permits substituted service
under Section 65 of the Cr.P.C. It prescribes that if service cannot, by exercise
of due diligence, be effected as provided in Section 62, Section 63 and Section
64 of the Cr.P.C., the serving officer shall affix one of the duplicates of the
summons to some conspicuous part of the house or homestead in which the
person summoned ordinarily resides; and thereupon the court, after making
such enquiries as it thinks fit, may either declare that the summons has been
duly served or order for fresh service in such manner as it considers proper. 
o 15. Thus, it is the duty of the court to enquire about the service of the
summonses upon the accused. If the summonses are not served, it is the
bounden duty of the court to see to it that they are served. If it is found that
summonses are received by the accused persons and still they fail to appear
before the court it would be a gross case of disobedience of the order of the
court and in that case, it would be the duty of the Court of Magistrate to issue
warrant, if necessary non-bailable to ensure the presence of the accused in the
court.

9. Inder Mohan Goswami & Another vs State Of Uttaranchal & Others, 2007

Supreme Court of India

Appeal (crl.) 1392 of 2007
Bench: Cji, R. V. Raveendran, Dalveer Bhandari
 o As to when a non- bailable warrant of arrest can be issued has been succinctly
set out by the Supreme Court by emphasizing that arrest or imprisonment
means deprivation of rights to individual and, thus, the courts have to be Patna
High Court Cr.M isc. No.629 of 2018 dt.08-03-2018 16/ 19 extremely careful
before issuing non-bailable warrant of arrest. In the said case, the Supreme
Court observed:- 
"53. Non-bailable warrant should be issued to bring a person to court
when summons of bailable warrants would be unlikely to have the
desired result. This could be when: 
it is reasonable to believe that the person will not voluntarily appear in
court; or  the police authorities are unable to find the person to serve
him with a summon; or  it is considered that the person could harm
someone if not placed into custody immediately. 

54. As far as possible, if the court is of the opinion that a summon will suffice
in getting the appearance of the accused in the court, the summon or the
bailable warrants should be preferred. The warrants either bailable or non-
bailable should never be issued without proper scrutiny of facts and complete
application of mind, due to the extremely serious consequences and
ramifications which ensue on issuance of warrants. The court must very
carefully examine whether the Criminal Complaint or FIR has not been filed
with an oblique motive.

Patna High Court

Vikram Kumar Tiwary vs The State Of Bihar Through The ... , 2019

Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1110 of 2019

18. Thus, it is the duty of the court to enquire about the service of the summons upon the
accused. 
19. If the summons are not served, it is the bounden duty of the court to see to it that they are
served. 

20. If it is found that summons are received by the accused persons and still they fail to
appear before the court it would be a gross case of disobedience of the Patna High Court CR.
WJC No. 1110 of 2019 dt.29-07-2019 order of the court and, in that case, it would be the
duty of the Court to issue warrant, if necessary, non-bailable to ensure the presence of the
accused in the court. 

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Joga Singh @ Mulakh Raj vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 25 June, 2018

Bench: Honourable Mr. Sharma

9. Section 64 provides that where despite due diligence, the person summoned is not served
with the notice, the summons may be served by leaving one of the duplicates for him with
some adult male member of his family residing with him, and the person with whom the
summons is so left shall, if so required by the serving officer, sign a receipt thereof on the
back of the other duplicate. It is further clarified in the aforesaid Section that servant is not a
member of the family. 

Section 65 provides for the procedure when service of summons cannot be effected after due
diligence according to the manner provided under sections 62, 63 or 64. In such a case, the
serving officer shall affix one of the duplicates of summons on a conspicuous part of the
house or homestead in which the person summoned ordinarily resides. The Court may declare
that summons has been duly served after making inquiries as it deems fit or order fresh
service.

Mac Charles (I) Ltd v Chandrashekar And Anr.

Karnataka High Court

2006 (1) ALD Cri 44

The court stated that the mode of service prescribed under section 65 of CrPC is substituted
service and is well recognized in law even for criminal trials. Such a mode of service can be
resorted to when the service of summons to the accused as per the manner prescribed under
sections 62, 63 or 64 cannot be effective. In other words, section 65 can only be resorted to
when the other modes of service of summons have been exhausted.

Central Electricity Regulatory Commission v National Hydroelectric Power Corporation

Ltd. & Ors

Supreme Court of India

2010 (10) SCC 280

In this case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court gave certain guidelines regarding service to deal
with arrears in Courts. The apex Court stated that service may be affected by e-mail along
with the ordinary mode of service.

The Court held that:

In various Courts, the statistical data indicates that, on account of delay in process serving,
arrears keep on mounting. In Delhi itself, the input indicates that fifty percent of the arrears in
courts particularly in commercial cases is on account of delay in process serving. For the
above reasons, the following directions as mentioned herein below, are given:

[i] In addition to the normal mode of service, service of Notice(s) may be affected by E-Mail
for which the advocate(s) on-record will, at the time of filing of petition/appeal furnish to the
filing counter a soft copy of the entire petition/appeal in PDF format;

[ii] The advocates on-record shall also simultaneously submit E-Mail addresses of the
respondent(s) Companies/Corporation(s) to the filing counter of the Registry. This will be in
addition to the hard copy of the petition/appeal;

[iii] If the Court issues notice, then, in that event alone, the Registry will send such an
additional notice at the E-Mail addresses of the respondent(s) Companies/Corporation(s)) via
E-Mail;

[iv] The Registry will also send Notice or the E-Mail address of the advocate(s) for
respondent(s) Companies/Corporations, who have filed caveat. Advocate(s) on record filing
caveat shall provide his/her E-Mail address for effecting service; and

[v] Within two weeks from today, Cabinet Secretariat shall also provide centralized E-Mail
addresses of various Ministries/Deportments/Regulatory Authorities along with the names of
the Nodal officers, if already appointed for the purposes of service.

Clarification:

The above facility is being extended in addition to the modes of service mentioned in the
existing Supreme Court Rules. This facility, for the time being is extended to commercial
litigation and to those cases where the advocate(s) on record seeks urgent interim reliefs.

In KSL & Industries Ltd v Mannalal Khandelwal & State of Maharashtra[ix],

Bombay High Court

Criminal Writ Petition No. 1228 of 2004

The court was of the view that a lot of time is spent in service of summons mainly due to the
accused’s tendency to avoid summons. The Court said that all pragmatic methods of services
must be adopted. The repeated summons must be sent by methods including email to ensure
the service of summons.

Anil D Ambani v. State of Bihar, 2006

(4) Pat LJR 571 (Pat)
In this case, a summons was issued to the Managing Deputy Director of a company. The
Court held that when a corporate body is an accused before the Court, the summons for
appearance of the corporate body has to be sent in the name of the corporate body itself and
the Court held the service illegal.

Hemendra Nath vs Archana

1971 CrLJ 817 (Cal)

In this case, the court held that where personal service as provided for in section 62 cannot be
effected, the law allows service on some adult member of the family, but not on a servant. To
justify such service, it should be shown that proper efforts were made to find the person
summoned.

GV Reddy v OTS Advertising Pvt Ltd, 2002

2002 Cr LJ 3515 (AP) : 2002 (1) Andh LT Cri 468 .

It was held that when police were either unable to or did not serve summons on the witnesses
whom the accused wanted to examine, the accused was given the right to seek assistance of
the Court to enforce the attendance of those witnesses. Closing the evidence without
permitting him to take steps to enforce the attendance of those witnesses amounted to denial
of fair opportunity to put forth his case.

Nav Maharashtra Chakan Oil Mill Ltd v Shivashakti Poultry Farm, 2002

2002 Cr LJ 4446 (Kant).,

In this case the court held that the procedure of issuing process to accused by post is not
permissible.