Step 1: Understanding the Concept:
The question asks about the nature of a "summons" as a form of legal process under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
Step 2: Key Legal Provision:
Chapter VI of the CrPC deals with "Processes to Compel Appearance," which includes Summons (Sections 61-69) and Warrant of Arrest (Sections 70-81).
- Section 61 CrPC is titled "Form of summons." It states that every summons issued by a Court under this Code shall be in writing, in duplicate, signed by the presiding officer of such Court and shall bear the seal of the Court.
- Section 91 CrPC deals with "Summons to produce document or other thing."
Step 3: Detailed Explanation:
Let's analyze the nature of a summons based on the provisions of the CrPC:
- (A) It is milder form of process: Compared to a warrant of arrest, which directs the police to arrest a person and bring them before the court, a summons is simply an order for the person to appear. It is less coercive and therefore a milder form of process. This statement is true.
- (B) It is for appearance: The primary purpose of a summons issued under Chapter VI is to compel the appearance of a person (an accused or a witness) before the court. This statement is true.
- (C) It is for producing documents or thing: A summons can also be issued to compel a person to produce a document or a thing. Section 91 CrPC specifically provides for this. So, a summons is not just for personal appearance but also for production of evidence. This statement is true.
Since all three statements (A), (B), and (C) accurately describe the characteristics and purposes of a summons under the CrPC, the correct answer is "All of them".
Step 4: Final Answer:
All the given statements about a summons are true. It is a milder form of process, used for compelling appearance, and also for producing documents or things.
Having heard the learned Counsels for the parties, and on perusal of the ma terial on record, the primary issue which arises for consideration of this Court is ”whether a review or recall of an order passed in a criminal proceeding initiated under section 340 of CrPC is permissible or not?” [...] A careful consideration of the statutory provisions and the aforesaid decisions of this Court clarify the now-well settled position of jurisprudence of Section 362 of CrPC which when summarized would be that the criminal courts, as envisaged under the CrPC, are barred from altering or reviewing in their own judgments except for the exceptions which are explicitly provided by the statute, namely, correction of a clerical or an arithmetical error that might have been committed or the said power is provided under any other law for the time being in force. As the courts become functus officio the very moment a judgment or an order is signed, the bar of Section 362 CrPC becomes applicable. Despite the powers provided under Section 482 CrPC which, this veil cannot allow the courts to step beyond or circumvent an explicit bar. It also stands clarified that it is only in situations wherein an application for recall of an order or judgment seeking a procedural review that the bar would not apply and not a substantive review where the bar as contained in Section 362 CrPC is attracted. Numerous decisions of this Court have also elaborated that the bar under said provision is to be applied stricto sensu.
(Extracted with edits and revisions from Vikram Bakshi v. RP Khosla 2025 INSC 1020)