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