In a sharply worded order, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has exposed startling lapses in the criminal justice process, where summons in a 2013 case reached the accused only in 2025 - twelve long years later. Justice B. Pugalendhi, delivering the judgment on October 14, 2025, described the delay as 'deeply disturbing' and symptomatic of "systemic neglect" by both the police and the subordinate judiciary.
The petitioner, Ramasamy, a senior citizen from Dindigul district, sought to quash proceedings against him in a case filed by his daughter-in-law under Sections 294(b), 506(i) IPC, and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act.
Background
The dispute originated in 2013, when a domestic quarrel led to a police complaint and charge sheet (CC No.128/2013). Yet, despite the case being taken on file that year, Ramasamy was unaware of its existence until a summons finally landed at his doorstep on June 4, 2025.
When the matter came before the High Court, Justice Pugalendhi expressed surprise - even disbelief - that a case could languish for over a decade without the accused being informed. “How can the machinery of justice take twelve years to deliver a piece of paper?” the bench asked in open court, its tone heavy with irony.
To uncover the cause of the delay, the Court ordered both the Superintendent of Police, Dindigul, and the Judicial Magistrate, Vedasandur, to submit detailed reports.
Court's Observations
The investigation into the delay read like a bureaucratic farce. Records showed that from 2015 onwards, the case was routinely adjourned with the same note - “Issue fresh summon to accused” - repeated across dozens of hearing dates.
From the police side, the Superintendent’s report painted a picture of negligence bordering on absurdity. The first summons, received in 2018, was neither entered into the process register nor served. The next, issued in 2021, was lost amid the Covid-19 lockdown. A third, in 2024, met the same fate due to official inaction. Only in mid-2025 was service finally completed.
Justice Pugalendhi did not mince words:
“The delay is attributable to lapses both on the part of the Police and on the part of the Court Registry,” he said, adding that both institutions had “mechanically issued fresh summons without any mind being applied.”
He noted that Tamil Nadu Police Standing Order No.715 mandates a process register in every police station and regular inspections by senior officers - a rule blatantly ignored. The Court also invoked Section 67 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which allows “substituted service” when normal service fails, and Rule 29(11) of the Criminal Rules of Practice (2019), which requires police to file an affidavit detailing their efforts in every failed service attempt.
"These three provisions together form a safety net against delays," the judge observed. "But in this case, they were treated as if they never existed."
The order underlined a crucial point - the Judiciary too shares responsibility. The Magistrate’s office, said the Court, "issued directions mechanically" without verifying compliance or exploring alternatives like affixing summons to the accused’s home.
Systemic Reforms Ordered
Interestingly, the judgment may spark a shift in how summons are served across Tamil Nadu. The Court noted a recent circular from the Director General of Police (C.No.44/PCW-WC/SCRB/2024) dated August 13, 2025, directing all police to use the new e-summon mobile application. Justice Pugalendhi welcomed this initiative and directed both the DGP and the Registrar General of the High Court to ensure "immediate and strict compliance" of e-summons to prevent such failures in the future.
"If implemented properly," the judge remarked, "this will prevent the kind of administrative paralysis we’ve witnessed here."
He also hinted at possible disciplinary action for negligent officials, stating that the Dindigul Police had already initiated proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1995 and Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 against delinquent personnel.
Court's Decision
Despite acknowledging the extraordinary delay, the High Court stopped short of quashing the case. Justice Pugalendhi noted that since trial proceedings had already begun and summons to witnesses were issued, it would not be appropriate to terminate the prosecution at this stage.
"Delay in service of summons, however grave, cannot by itself be a ground to quash the proceedings," he clarified.
The Court disposed of the petition with liberty to Ramasamy to raise his defence before the trial court. At the same time, it issued a strict timeline - the Judicial Magistrate at Vedasandur must complete the trial within three months from receiving the order.
Before closing the matter, the judge directed copies of the order to be sent to the Director General of Police, Registrar General, and Registrar (IT) of the Madras High Court to coordinate digital reforms.
And with that, after twelve years of paper chases, adjournments, and neglected summons, the High Court's intervention brought the long-forgotten case of Ramasamy v. State of Tamil Nadu back to life - this time, under a ticking clock.
Case Title:- Ramasamy v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Case Number: Crl.OP(MD) No. 13075 of 2025
Delivered On: 14 October 2025
