Voluntary participation in proceedings through counsel can render formal summons service unnecessary, and specific provisions in the Criminal Procedure Code should be exhausted before seeking High Court intervention.

This O.P has been filed to set aside the order dated 9.10.2003 issuing a Non Bailable Warrant against the petitioner in C.C.No.3533 of 2001 pending on the file of the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate's Court, Saidapet.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

The petitioner is working at the United States of America. The petitioner married one Janani (daughter of the complainant Shankar) on 7.2.2000. For the marriage, A1 demanded Rs.10,00,000/- as cash and gold and diamond jewellery worth Rs.15,00,000/- at the time of engagement on 10.5.1999 at the house of A1. On 25.12.1999, Rs.5,00,000/- was paid as first instalment of dowry amount and another sum of Rs.5,00,000/- was paid on 6.2.2000. Thereafter, the petitioner and his wife left for America on 24.2.2000. There, a dispute arose between the parties. The complainant wanted A1 to return to Madras to take care of his factories, for which, A2 and A3 demanded Rs.50,00,000/- to be deposited in the name of A1 and also to construct a bungalow for A1. At America, A1, at the instigation of A2 to A4 (parents and brother of A1) ill-treated the complainant's daughter Janani, physically assaulted her and therefore, the complainant's daughter Janani and his wife Vidya returned to India on 9.7.2000 and thereafter, lodged a complaint, based on which, investigation was conducted and final report was filed against the petitioner as A1 and his parents as A2 and A3 and his brother as A4. Except A1, others appeared in Court. Therefore, non-bailable warrant was issued against A1.

3. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that no summons was served on the petitioner (A1) and without service of summons, issue of non-bailable warrant is against law and the same is liable to be quashed.

4. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the intervener / complainant is that warrant that was issued is lawful and there is no illegality in issuing warrant.

5. Admittedly, so far, summons have not been served on the petitioner. Under section 87(a) of Cr.P.C, if either before the issue of summons or after the issue of the same but before the time fixed for the appearance of the accused, the Court has reason to believe that the accused has absconded or will not obey the summons, the Court has got a right to issue warrant after recording its reasons in writing. Section 87(a) of Cr.P.C reads as follows:

87. Issue of warrant in lieu of, or in addition to, summons.-- A Court may, in any case in which it is empowered by this Code to issue a summons for the appearance of any person, issue, after recording its reasons in writing, a warrant for his arrest---

(a) if, either before the issue of such summons, or after the issue of the same but before the time fixed for his appearance, the Court sees reason to believe that he has absconded or will not obey the summons;

6. A summons is served on an accused to inform him about the pendency of a proceeding against him in a Criminal Court, nature of offence alleged against him, the name of the person who has lodged the complaint, the number of the case, date of hearing and the Court where he should appear. These are the purposes for which summons are sent to the accused. Therefore, summons are served on a person only to inform him about the pendency of the proceedings against him and necessity of the accused to appear before the Court on a particular day.

7. As far as this case is concerned, the petitioner was well aware of the proceedings against him that he is the first accused in C.C.No.3533/2001 on the file of the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. Previously when a non-bailable warrant was issued against this very petitioner on the application of the complainant, the petitioner himself preferred Criminal Revision No.72/2002 and the same was admitted by the Sessions Court, Chennai. In Crl.O.P Nos.6636 & 9478 of 2002, by order dated 13.11.2002, this Court directed