Section 174A IPC | FIR Cannot Be Quashed If Process Server Reports Indicate Failure To Serve At Ordinary Residence: Delhi High Court Issues Guidelines

"If the summons or warrants or proclamation are directed to a place where the person concerned does not ordinarily reside, there cannot be a valid service of summons or execution of warrants or publication of proclamation. And consequently in such a case, it cannot be said that the person concerned fell in default and thereby, committed an offence under Section 174A IPC" Delhi High Court, in a significant ruling dated 09 October 2026, held that criminal proceedings under Section 174A IPC cannot be sustained where the underlying processes—summons, warrants, or proclamations—were issued to addresses where the accused does not ordinarily reside.

A bench of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Girish Kathpali observed that trial courts must ensure an objective application of mind to service reports rather than proceeding in a "mechanical manner" to declare an accused an absconder.

The petitioner sought the quashing of an FIR registered under Section 174A IPC after being declared an absconder in a cheque bounce case under Section 138 of the NI Act. The petitioner contended that the trial court’s declaration of him as an absconder was legally flawed because the summons and warrants were consistently sent to incorrect addresses where he had not resided or worked for years. Despite reports from process servers confirming the accused’s absence at those locations, the trial court had issued warrants and subsequently ordered registration of the FIR.

The primary question before the court was whether an FIR under Section 174A IPC can be maintained when the trial court fails to verify if the accused "ordinarily resides" at the address provided by the complainant. The court was also called upon to determine the extent of a trial court’s duty to objectively scrutinize process service reports before invoking the penal provisions of Section 82 CrPC and Section 174A IPC.

Trial Court’s Procedural Lapse

The High Court noted that the trial court proceeded "post-haste" without verifying the factual basis for declaring the petitioner an absconder. Despite clear reports from police officials that the petitioner was not found at the given addresses, the trial court repeatedly observed that he was "deliberately avoiding arrest" without any evidence to substantiate such a finding.

Court Must Not Rely on Ahlmad’s Report

The Court emphasized that presiding judges must personally examine the reports submitted by process servers and police officials. The bench noted that in this case, the trial court appeared to have ignored these substantive reports, preferring to rely solely on the mechanical endorsements made by the court staff, which is insufficient for the gravity of declaring an absconder.

Objective Satisfaction Required

The Court underscored that the "reasons to believe" required under Section 82 CrPC must be based on objective material and not subjective conjecture. Since the record itself established that the addresses were incorrect, the Court ruled that the FIR could not survive, as there was no valid service of process to begin with.

Directives to Subordinate Courts

To prevent similar miscarriages of justice, the High Court issued mandatory directions for all criminal courts in Delhi. These include requiring complainants to furnish addresses on affidavit, requiring judges to personally examine service reports, and mandating that trial courts demand cogent evidence from complainants if an address is contested by a process server's return report.

Mandatory Directions for Future Proceedings

The Court directed that henceforth, when a process returns unserved, the trial court shall call upon the complainant to submit cogent evidence proving the accused ordinarily resides at the disclosed address before escalating to warrants or proclamation. This ensures that the overburdened nature of the judiciary does not lead to the misuse of Section 174A IPC by mischievous complainants.

Finding the FIR and the subsequent proceedings to be an abuse of the process of law, the Court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR. The Registrar General was directed to circulate these guidelines to all trial courts and the Delhi Judicial Academy to ensure future adherence to the safeguards protecting against the illegal declaration of absconders.

Date of Decision: 09 October 2026