Back
2018 Supreme(P&H) 410
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
AMOL RATTAN SINGH, J.
Jaspal Kaur - Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab - Respondents
CRM-M-12107-2018 (O&M)
Decided On : 22-03-2018
For the Petitioner: Mr. Arpan Sabharwal
The court emphasized the importance of accurate service of notices and directed the trial court to investigate the issue of address discrepancy and potential avoidance of service.
Headnote:
Service of Notices - Address Discrepancy - Court directs trial court to examine whether petitioner was avoiding service or there was a discrepancy in the address provided
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner claims to have never been served with notices related to a complaint. Non-bailable warrant issued was returned with 'incomplete address' report.
Finding of the Court:
The court directs the trial court to examine the issue and take action if false report is found. The petitioner's address was admitted to be correct and complete.
Issues: Service of notices, discrepancy in address, potential avoidance of service
Ratio Decidendi: The trial court is directed to investigate the issue of service and address discrepancy. Action to be taken if false report is found.
Final Decision: The petition is disposed of with the above observations and directions.
Amol Rattan Singh, J.
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was never served of the notices issued to her, of the complaint instituted by one Naresh Arora.
2. He points to the zimni orders passed in that complaint, as have been annexed as Annexure P-6 (colly) with the petition.
3. A perusal thereof shows that as per the report put up before the trial court on 17.10.2014, the non-bailable warrant issued had been received back with the report, “incomplete address”. Thereafter, the factum of the correct address not having been filed was noticed by the Court in the subsequent orders also.
4. Upon query to the learned counsel, he submits that the petitioners' address actually is what is given in the complaint, i.e. House No. 27-A, Guru Nanak Nagar, Jalandhar, which is also the address given in the memo of parties of the present petition.
5. That being so, it would be for the trial court to examine as per the evidence led in the proceedings under Section 174 IPC, as to whether it was the petitioner who was avoiding service in connivance with the process server, or otherwise, because once the address has been admitted to be the correct and complete address of the petitioner even before this Court, it is difficult to understand how a report could be made stating to the effect that it was incomplete.
6. The trial court is directed to go into that issue and if any person entrusted with the service of the notices/summons/warrants issued has been found to have made a false report, action would be taken against that person also.
7. This petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.
