Chapter VI
Section 65 CrPC: Procedure when service cannot be effected as before provided
New Law Update (2024)
Section 72 BNSS
TRIAL COURT
Punishment
Procedural – Warrant / Summons Process
Cognizable?
Bailable?
Compoundable?
Bare Act Text
If service cannot by the exercise of due diligence be effected as provided in section 62, section 63 or section 64, the serving officer shall affix one of the duplicates of the summons to some conspicuous part of the house or homestead in which the person summoned ordinarily resides; and thereupon the Court, after making such inquiries as it thinks fit, may either declare that the summons has been duly served or order fresh service in such manner as it considers proper.
Important Sub-Sections Explained
Landmark Judgements
P. Sarathy v. State Bank of India (2000):
This Supreme Court case, while primarily under the Code of Civil Procedure, lays down the fundamental principle that substituted service is an exceptional mode and can only be resorted to when ordinary modes are not possible despite due diligence. It underscores the necessity of making sincere efforts before adopting indirect methods of service.
Smt. Neerja W/o Sh. Balbir Singh v. Balbir Singh S/o Sh. Ramphal (2018):
The Punjab and Haryana High Court reiterated that mere affixation of summons without exercising due diligence to effect personal service as per previous sections is insufficient. It emphasized that the Court must be satisfied that proper efforts were genuinely made before declaring the service valid, thereby reinforcing the critical role of ‘due diligence’ and judicial inquiry under Section 65.