Should An Accused Fear Arrest Over Summons Issued In A Private Complaint? Supreme Court Answers

The Supreme Court has said mere issuance of summons by a judicial magistrate after taking cognizance of a private complaint filed for the offences of cheating and criminal breach of trust is no basis to assume that the accused would be arrested on his appearance before the court.

A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Vishwanathan declined to entertain a special leave petition filed by Himanshu Kumar Verma against the Patna High Court's order of November 3, 2025, which dismissed his plea for anticipatory bail.

"We fail to understand what necessitated the petitioner to go before the High Court and pray for anticipatory bail in a case arising from a private complaint lodged by the complainant in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate,'' the bench said.  

The court examined the order to state that it indicated that the magistrate took cognizance upon the complaint and issued process under Section 204 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

"Once summons is issued, the petitioner has to appear before the court concerned. We fail to understand the basis of the apprehension expressed that once the petitioner would appear before the court of the Judicial Magistrate, he would be taken in custody and sent behind bars,'' the bench said.

The court said that petitioner would appear before the court concerned in pursuance of the summons issued by the court of the Magistrate. Thereafter, it is for the court concerned to proceed further in accordance with the provision of the CrPC.  

Referring to Section 87 of the CrPC, the bench noted, it provided that the court may, while issuing summons for the appearance of any person, issue a warrant for his arrest for the reasons to be recorded in writing. 

Such warrant of arrest can be issued in two contingencies as explained in (a) if, either before the issue of such summons, or after the issue of the same but before the time fixed for his appearance, the Court sees reason to believe that he has absconded or will not obey the summons; or and (b) if at such time he fails to appear and the summons is proved to have been duly served in time to admit of his appearing in accordance therewith and no reasonable excuse is offered for such failure, respectively, the court pointed out. 

"In the case at hand, while issuing summons, the Court has not taken recourse to Section 87 of the Code. Had the court issued a warrant for the arrest of the petitioner while taking cognizance and issuing process, then in such circumstances, perhaps the petitioner would have been justified in praying for anticipatory bail, as on the strength of the warrant the police would arrest him,'' the bench said.  

Disposing of the petition, the bench said, the Trial Court would now proceed in accordance with Chapter XIV of the CrPC, i.e., cases instituted otherwise than on a police report.  

Case Title: Himanshu Kumar Verma Vs The State of Bihar & Anr

Bench: Justices J B Pardiwala and K V Vishwanathan 

Date of Judgment: February 9, 2026