Introduction
“Summon” is a document that commands a person to whom it
is served to appear before the court and to answer the
complaint made against him. Summon is issued by the
Magistrate to the accused under section 204(1) (a) of Cr.P.C,
1973. “Summon case” means a case relating to an offence, not
being a warrant case[1]. Summon cases can be referred from
the definition of the warrant case i.e., offences punishable with
death, imprisonment for life and imprisonment for the terms
exceeding two years called as warrant cases[2]. So summon
cases are those in which punishment will not exceed
imprisonment for two years. It can be said that summon cases
are not of serious nature, so it needs to be decided speedily,
without dispensing the requisites of the fair trial. The
procedure to deal with such matter provided in section 251 to
259 of Cr.P.C, 1973 which is not as serious/formal as other trials
(Session trial, warrant case instituted on the police report and
warrant cases instituted otherwise than on police report).
The main emphasis in the present article is on the procedure of
the summon cases. General steps of a procedure in summon
case is same as other trials, but this trial is less formal for the
speedy remedy.
A “summon” refers to a legal document issued by a court,
typically a Magistrate, ordering a person to appear before
the court. This document is used in summon cases, which
generally involve less serious offenses.
When a summon is issued, it serves as a command for the
individual named in it to appear in court on a specified
date and time to respond to a complaint or charges filed
against them. The individual may be required to answer
questions, enter a plea (such as guilty or not guilty), or
provide their defence during the court proceedings.
Summons are employed to ensure that individuals
involved in legal matters, whether as accused persons or
witnesses, participate in the legal process and contribute
to the resolution of the case. Failure to comply with a
summons can lead to legal consequences, such as arrest
warrants or contempt of court charges.
Trial of Summon Cases
The trial of summon cases in CrPC has been dealt with as:
Accusation Explanation (Section 251)
In summon cases, there’s no need to formally charge the
accused. Instead, they are told about the accusation and
asked if they admit guilt.
Guilty Plea (Section 252)
If the accused admits their guilt, the Magistrate records
their plea and convicts them.
Guilty Plea in Absence (Section 253)
If someone, on behalf of the accused, admits guilt, the
Magistrate can, at their discretion, order the accused’s
conviction.
Trial Procedure (Section 254)
If Sections 252 and 253 don’t result in conviction, the
Magistrate proceeds with a full trial, recording evidence
from both prosecution and defence.
Verdict (Section 255)
After examining all the evidence and witnesses, the
Magistrate decides whether to convict or acquit the
accused based on valid reasons.
Complainant Absence or Death (Section 256)
If a summon case is based on a complaint, and the
complainant is absent, the Magistrate can acquit the
accused or adjourn the case. In some cases, the trial may
proceed without the complainant.
Withdrawal of Complaint (Section 257)
If the complainant withdraws their complaint with the
Magistrate’s permission before the final decision, the
accused is acquitted.
Stopping Proceedings (Section 258)
In summon cases not based on a complaint, with
permission from higher judicial authorities, the Magistrate
can halt the trial, but they must provide a good reason. If
stopped after the main witness’s evidence, it’s like
acquitting the accused; before the main witness, it’s like
discharging them.
Conversion to Warrant Case (Section 259)
If a summon case carries a punishment of more than six
months’ imprisonment and it’s in the interest of justice, it
can be converted into a warrant case.
Compensation for Accused (Section 250)
If there’s insufficient evidence for the accusation, the
accused can be acquitted or discharged. The Magistrate
can order compensation for the accused but must issue a
notice first. If the complainant doesn’t pay, they can be
imprisoned for up to 30 days.
Landmark Cases on Summon Cases
Manbodh Biswal vs. Samaru Pradhan (1980 Cri LJ
1023): This case emphasized the mandatory nature of
Section 251 of CrPC. It argued that when an accused is
brought before a Magistrate, they must be informed about
the charges against them and asked if they want to plead
guilty or continue with the trial. In this particular case,
because the accused wasn’t informed about the charges,
the trial couldn’t proceed.
S. Rama Krishna vs. S. Rami Reddy [(2008) 5 SCC
535]: This judgment clarified Section 256 of CrPC. It stated
that when the complainant is absent from the trial for a
significant period and doesn’t respond to repeated
summons, the Magistrate has the authority to acquit the
accused of all charges.
Driver Mohmed Valli & Ors. Vs. State (1960): This case
highlighted the distinction between issuing a summons
and ordering the issuance of a summons. It pointed out
that a summons is served by police officers directly to the
intended recipient.
Hemedranath Chowdhury vs. Smt. Archana Chowdhury
(AIR 1971 Cal 244, 1971 CriLJ 817): This judgment
focused on Section 64 of CrPC. It stressed that to locate
the person being summoned, adequate efforts must be
made and proven in accordance with the law.
Analysis of Summon Trails
The summon trials is intentionally less formal to ensure a
quick resolution. However, Section 258 poses a challenge
as it doesn’t explicitly grant Magistrates the authority to
dismiss cases in the absence of substantial grounds, which
can be disadvantageous to the accused. In the K.M.
Matthew case, the court suggested that Magistrates have
an implied power to dismiss cases when the allegations
don’t establish a crime. This viewpoint has been contested
in several legal decisions.
In the Arvind Kejriwal case, the Supreme Court noted
that the law doesn’t specifically empower Magistrates to
dismiss cases under Section 258. Instead, it directed such
cases to the high court to be handled under Section 482.
However, it’s important to note that even the high court
would need to assess whether there are sufficient grounds
to proceed against the accused, potentially delaying the
primary goal of summon cases: speedy trials.
Although this issue has been addressed in various cases
before the apex court, it warrants further examination to
ensure a fair trial and protect the rights of the accused,
especially in situations where their rights may be
jeopardized.
Conclusion
Summon cases are legal proceedings that pertain to less
serious offences. In these cases, an individual accused of
committing a crime is issued a summons by a court,
ordering them to appear before a Magistrate. Unlike more
complex trials, summon cases involve offences where the
punishment typically does not exceed two years of
imprisonment.
The accused is informed about the charges and given the
option to plead guilty or proceed with the trial. Summon
cases aim for a speedy resolution, emphasizing efficiency.
These cases are distinct from warrant cases, which deal
with more severe offences and require the issuance of an
arrest warrant. Summon cases play a crucial role in the
legal system by handling less serious criminal matters in a
straightforward and expedited manner
