Procedural Justice: Rajasthan HC Rules on Service of Process for Armed Forces Personnel

In a significant ruling regarding the procedural rights of military personnel, the Rajasthan High Court has emphasized that service of summons to members of the Indian Armed Forces must strictly adhere to the protocols established under the General Rules (Civil & Criminal), 2018. Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, presiding over the Jaipur Bench, set aside an ex-parte order after finding that the failure to serve notice through the petitioner’s Commanding Officer violated mandatory legal requirements.

The Backdrop: A Dispute Over Cognizance The matter stemmed from an F.I.R. registered in 2017 at the Mahila Thana (North), Jaipur, involving allegations under various sections of the IPC, including 498A and 406. While charge-sheets were filed against other individuals, the petitioner—a Lieutenant Commander in the Indian Navy—was not initially charge-sheeted. When a trial court subsequently refused the complainant's request to take cognizance against the officer, the complainant challenged the decision before a Revisional Court.

During the revisional proceedings, the Revisional Court issued notices via registered post. Relying solely on a tracking report from the Postal Department, the court deemed the service sufficient and proceeded to pass an ex-parte order, remanding the matter to the Magistrate for fresh consideration. The petitioner, unaware of these developments while posted at Port Blair, challenged the validity of this order.

Arguments: Statutory Compliance vs. Judicial Expediency The petitioner’s counsel argued that the procedure adopted by the Revisional Court was fundamentally flawed. It was submitted that under Order 31, Rule 5 of the General Rules (Civil & Criminal), 2018 , there is a specific mechanism for serving personnel of the Indian Armed Forces. This rule mandates that processes must be sent to the Commanding Officer, accompanied by a copy for the individual, to ensure they can be properly relieved of their duties.

The respondent-complainant conceded the procedural lapse, acknowledging that the statutory mandate requiring the involvement of the Commanding Officer had not been followed in the instant case.

Legal Analysis: The Mandatory Nature of Service Rules Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand firmly identified the legislative intent behind Order 31 Rule 5, noting that it exists to ensure that service members are not caught off guard and are granted sufficient time to make arrangements for their leave or legal representation. The court clarified that relying on standard registered post, while often sufficient for civilians, is inadequate when the subject is an active-duty member of the Armed Forces.

By failing to serve the Commanding Officer, the Revisional Court denied the petitioner a fair opportunity to be heard, rendering the subsequent ex-parte order unsustainable in law.

Key Observations * "Perusal of the aforesaid provision makes it explicitly clear that it is mandatory for the Presiding Officer to send the summons for service to the Commanding Officer of such Soldier, Sailor or Airman along-with a copy, which is required to be retained by the person concerned." * "The aforesaid exercise is required to be done with simple reason that sufficient time is granted for making necessary arrangements for relieving the concerned person from the operations of the Armed Forces." * "In the instant case, the notices have not been sent to the petitioner, in terms of the above statutory/mandatory provisions contained under Rule 31 Rule 5 of the Rules of 2018 . On this count alone, the order impugned passed by the Revisional Court is not sustainable and the same is liable to be quashed and is hereby set-aside."

A Fresh Direction The High Court has set aside the impugned order of the Revisional Court. As a direct consequence, the subsequent cognizance order against the petitioner also stands nullified. The Revisional Court has been directed to hear the matter afresh after ensuring proper service.

To expedite the process and respect the petitioner's professional commitments, the High Court directed the petitioner to present the order to his Commanding Officer, who is expected to facilitate his participation in the revisional proceedings—either through counsel or video conferencing. The Revisional Court is tasked with resolving the matter within six months, underscoring the High Court’s commitment to clearing a nine-year-old backlog while strictly upholding procedural safeguards.