Service of summons outside local limits
Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 deals with service of summons outside local limits. When a Court desires that a summons issued by it shall be served at any place outside its local jurisdiction, it shall ordinarily send such summons in duplicate to a Magistrate within whose local jurisdiction the person summoned resides, or is, to be there served. The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
When a Court desires that a summons issued by it shall be served at any place outside its local jurisdiction, it shall ordinarily send such summons in duplicate to a Magistrate within whose local jurisdiction the person summoned resides, or is, to be there served.
Section 69, The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Act 46 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure
CRPC 67 Service of summons outside local limits Text carried over almost unchanged 100%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Shri. Parashuram S/o Shivarudra Salunke vs Bhumika Alias Megha W/o Parashuram Salunke
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 67, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C for maintenance, the court must strictly comply with Section 67 Cr.P.C when serving summons on a person residing outside its local jurisdiction by sending summons in duplicate to the Magistrate within whose jurisdiction the person resides. Further, evidence must be recorded in the presence of the respondent or his pleader as prescribed under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C, and ex-parte proceedings are permissible only when the Magistrate is satisfied that the respondent is willfully avoiding service or willfully neglecting to attend court; mere postal endorsement marked unclaimed does not constitute willful avoidance. Procedural non-compliance in maintenance proceedings warrants setting aside the order and remitting for fresh hearing, though interim maintenance may be awarded to protect the wife's interests.
On this section: Service of summons outside local limits; when person summoned resides outside local jurisdiction, summons shall ordinarily be sent in duplicate to Magistrate within whose jurisdiction person resides
-
Kamlesh Kumar Lodhi vs State of U.p.
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 67, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When co-accused persons with identical roles in a narcotic drug trafficking case have been granted bail by the same court, and the applicant has no direct recovery of drugs, no criminal history, and has been in pre-trial detention for over seven months, bail should be granted applying the principle of parity, subject to stringent conditions ensuring the applicant's presence before court, cooperation in trial, and non-tampering with evidence. The mere fact that applicant was found inside a vehicle carrying commercial quantity of narcotic drugs, without direct recovery from the applicant, does not create an absolute bar to bail under Section 37 NDPS Act when considered against the totality of circumstances including parity with similarly situated co-accused.
On this section: N.C.B. counsel submitted that statements under Section 67 Cr.P.C. have not been brought on record by applicant
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… Bail Application No.3055/2026 ORDER BELOW EXH.1 1. The applicant Pratik Ramchandra Gogawale has filed this application for anticipatory bail under section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) in anticipation of arrest in C.R. No.224/2026 registered with Bavdhan police station under sections 69, 115(2), 352, 351(1) of BNS. 2. Prosecution Story :- There are allegations in the FIR that the applicant had under the false pretext of marriage kept physical relations with informant since June 2025 till December 2025 and also during this period abused and assaulted her and also threatened to defame her. So, …
-
… The applicants/accused Siddharth Devidas Zende has moved this application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 as he is apprehending his arrest on an accusation in Crime No. 312/2025 for the offences punishable under Section 69,316(2), 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, registered with Baramati Taluka Police Station, Dist. Pune. 2. The allegations in the FIR are summarized as under: On 30/07/2025 informant/victim lodged report in Baramati Taluka Police Station alleging therein that, she was married in the year 2009. …
Questions about Section 69
What have the courts held on Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita?
Shri. Parashuram S/o Shivarudra Salunke vs Bhumika Alias Megha W/o Parashuram Salunke (23 Nov 2023) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under CRPC 67, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Service of summons outside local limits; when person summoned resides outside local jurisdiction, summons shall ordinarily be sent in duplicate to Magistrate within whose jurisdiction person resides. Another 1 judgment on this section is set out below. They run from 2020 to 2023.
How do I find court cases under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: BNSS 69, section 69 BNSS, section 69 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. People searching for it also type bns 69 in ipc. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 2 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Shri. Parashuram S/o Shivarudra Salunke vs Bhumika Alias Megha W/o Parashuram Salunke (23 Nov 2023).
What should I read with Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and has it changed?
5 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. It carries forward CrPC 67 (Service of summons outside local limits), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita come into force?
Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, cited as BNSS 69, came into force on 01 Jul 2024, having been enacted on 25 Dec 2023. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 359. Compounding of offences1355 words
- 187. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty-four hours1122 words
- 2. Definitions956 words
- 243. Trial for more than one offence930 words
- 35. When police may arrest without warrant881 words
- 480. When bail may be taken in case of non-bailable offence823 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 14 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.