JUDGMENT 1. - This miscellaneous petition is directed against the order dated June 2, 1992, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ratangarh, by which the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate accepted the Final Report submitted by the police. 2. The petitioner, on February 29, 1992, lodged an FIR at Police Station, Ratangarh, on the basis of this report, a case under sections 451, 323 and 147, IPC was registered against the accused Kailash, Geeta, Budh Prakash and Subhash. The police, during investigation, recorded the statements of Pawan Kumar, Vimla, Durga Dutt, Dileep Kumar and others. The police, after necessary investigation, found no case against the accused for the offences under Sections 451 and 147 IPC and as the offence under Section 323 IPC is not cognizable offence and, therefore, the police submitted the Final Report on March 6, 1992. After the submission of the Final Report, notices were issued to the complainant. As per the report of the Process Server, the complainant, after seeing the police party, absconds and, therefore, the summon could not be served upon him personally though he had knowledge of the same and, therefore, the notice was affixed on the house of the complainant. The learned Magistrate, on the basis of this report, by his order dated June 2, 1992, accepted the Final Report in the absence of the complainant. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the complainant petitioner that he never absconded after seeing the police party or the process server. He further submitted that he had no knowledge regarding the issuance of the summon. If he would have any knowledge of the summon, he would have presented himself be fore the Court and contested the matter. He, therefore, submits that the order, passed by the Court below, accepting the Final Report, deserves to be quashed and set-aside. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has supported the order passed by the Court below. 4. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the summon issued by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ratangarh. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has supported the order passed by the Court below. 4. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the summon issued by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ratangarh. 5. The summons were issued on May 29, 1992, and the following report has been made by the Process Server on this summon : " Jhekuth] iou dqekj iq= lhrkjke lksuh okMZ ua0 5 fu0 jrux<+ dks rkehy djokuh pkgh rks os iqfyl ds vkokxeu gksdj jks iks'k gks tkrs gSA lEeu tkjh gksus dk mldks lwpuk gS ysfdu og jh iks'k gksrk gSA iqfyl ds vkokxeu ij fjiksVZ lsok esa is'k gSA uksfVl dh izkfIr lwpuk edku ij pLik dj rkehy djok;hA " The Process Server has not mentioned the date on which he effected the service on the house of the complainant. He has, also, not given any details on which date he went to the house of the complainant to effect the service. The Process Server, also, did not take care to get the notice served on any adult member of the family of the complainant present at the house. Section 62 Cr. PC provides the mode of service of the summon. According to Sub-section (2) of Section 62 Cr.PC, the summon shall, if practicable, be served personally on the person concerned, by delivering or tendering to him one of the duplicate copies of the summon. In case the summon could not be served-upon the person personally or the persons summoned cannot be found by the exercise of due diligence, the same may be served by leaving one of the duplicate copies for him by handing over the same to an adult male member of the family residing with him. If the service of the summon, as per Section 62 or 64 of the Code of Criminal Procedure could not be effected then Section 65 Cr.PC provides a procedure for effecting the service on such person.According to Section 65 Cr.PC, if the service on the person summoned cannot be effect by the exercise of due diligence, as provided under sections 62, 63 or 64, the Serving Official shall affix one of the duplicate copies of the summon to the conspicuous part of the house or the part of the house in which the person summoned ordinarily resides. The mode of service under Section 65 Cr. PC can be adopted only if after the exercise of the due diligence the service, as provided under Sections 62 or 64 Cr.PC is not effected on the person summoned. In the present case, no efforts have been made by the Process Server to get the service effected as provided under Section 62 or 64 of the Code. It is only mentioned in the report that the petitioner absconds after seeing the police. But that report does not find any date on which the Process Server went to the house of the petitioner to get this summon served. Even if it is taken to be a true even then after the exercise of the due diligence if the person summoned could not be found then the Process Server/police was required to get the summon served on some other adult male member of his family residing in his house, as required under Section 64 Cr. PC. Admittedly, no effort was made for getting the petitioner served as per Section 64 Cr. PC. When no efforts were made to get the petitioner served as required under Section 64 Cr. PC the procedure provided under Section 65 Cr. PC was of no avail to the Process Server because Section 65 Cr. PC is applicable only in the case where after the exercise of the due diligence, the service on the person summoned could not be effected, as provided under Sections 62 or 64 Cr. PC. The Serving Official should get the service on the person summoned effected under Section 65 Cr. PC. Only if he could not get him served under Section 62 or 64 Cr. PC. In the present case, as no effort was made to get the service on the complaint effected either under Section 62 or under Section 64 Cr. PC and, therefore, the service effected under Section 65 Cr. PC cannot be said to be a legal service in the eye of law. As the petitioner was not served and the order accepting the Final Report has been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the complainant, the order dated June 2, 1992 therefore, deserves to be quashed. 6. In the result, this miscellaneous petition, filed by the petitioner, is allowed. As the petitioner was not served and the order accepting the Final Report has been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the complainant, the order dated June 2, 1992 therefore, deserves to be quashed. 6. In the result, this miscellaneous petition, filed by the petitioner, is allowed. The order dated June 2, 1992, passed by the learned Magistrate, accepting the Final Report, is set-aside and the petitioner is directed to appear before the learned Magistrate on October 01, 1992, and the learned Magistrate is directed to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law regarding taking of the cognizance after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.Petition allowed. *******