Court mandates adherence to procedural safeguards for Armed Forces summons; matter remanded for fresh hearing
In a significant legal development, the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, has quashed the ex-parte order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, in the case concerning service of summons to Armed Forces personnel. The judgment delivered by Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand highlights the importance of following mandatory procedural safeguards under the General Rules (Civil & Criminal), 2018, specifically for soldiers, sailors, and airmen.
The case involves petitioner Dhananjay Kumar, a Lieutenant Commander in the Indian Navy, who was not charge-sheeted in an FIR registered under Sections 498A, 406, 354, 377, and 120B of the IPC. The complainant sought cognizance against Kumar, which was initially rejected by the Metropolitan Magistrate. Subsequently, the complainant approached the Revisional Court, which allowed the revision without proper service of summons to Kumar, treating postal tracking as sufficient.
Justice Dhand emphasized the necessity of serving summons through the Commanding Officer of Armed Forces personnel, as stipulated in Order 31, Rule 5 of the General Rules (Civil & Criminal), 2018. The court held that non-compliance with these provisions renders the service invalid and set aside the Revisional Court's order, remanding the matter for fresh hearing.
The judgment underscores the procedural safeguards for Armed Forces personnel, directing the Commanding Officer to facilitate Kumar’s appearance before the Revisional Court through counsel or video conferencing. The court expects expedited disposal of the case, preferably within six months, and clarified that any cognizance order based on the quashed Revisional Court order automatically stands nullified.
This ruling reiterates the court's commitment to ensuring justice through adherence to statutory mandates, particularly for those serving in the Armed Forces.
Bottom line:-
Service of summons on personnel of Armed Forces must comply with mandatory provisions of Order 31, Rule 5 of the General Rules (Civil & Criminal), 2018, requiring summons to be sent through the Commanding Officer along with sufficient time for arrangements for relieving the concerned person.
Statutory provision(s): Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 68, Section 190, Section 482; General Rules (Civil & Criminal), 2018 Order 31, Rule 5
Dhananjay Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, (Rajasthan)(Jaipur Bench) : Law Finder Doc id # 2915354
