There are three different points to this answer:
Firstly: There is only one provision in Cr.P.C which provides for service of summons through RPAD namely S. 69 of Cr.P.C. which talks about service of summons to a "witness". It says that a witness may be served by RPAD only in addition to and simultaneously with the issue of summons as stipulated in the provisions of the Code, Thus an accused cannot be served summons through RPAD, only a witness can be served through RPAD and that also only in addittion to the regular process.
Secondly: Section 62 of Cr.P.C. clearly lays down that 'every summons shall be served by a police officer, or subject to such rules as the State Govt. may make in this behalf, by an officer of the Court issuing it or other public servant.'
Thus service of summons other than the above stipulated method is not valid. Thus service of summons to an accused RPAD not recognised by law.
Moreover, this section also mentions that if practicable, such persons shall be served personally on the person summoned.
If the person summoned cannot be found, S. 64 provides that a duplicate of such summons be left with some adult male member of such person's family residing with such person.
The Code goes further to say in S. 65 that if summons cannot be served in the above manner also, then a copy of such summons be pasted in some conspicuous part of the house or homestead in which such person summoned ordinarily resides. The Court can on further enquiry declare such summons to be duly served or order fresh summons.
Thirdly, and most importantly, your case deals with S. 380 of the IPC which is a warrant case, hence, according to S. 204 of Cr.P.C. in a warrant-case the Magistrate may issue a warrant or if he thinks fit, a summons, for causing the accused to appear. Thus in your case, it being a warrant case, the court can directly issue warrant without issuing any summons. Thus you can point out S. 204 before the court and can request for issue of warrant (directly, without first issuing any summons).