Allahabad High Court
Naveen @ Bobby @ Naveen Kumar Jain And 2 ... vs State Of U.P. And Another on 23 April, 2025
Author: Manju Rani Chauhan
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:61296
Court No. - 52
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1118 of 2025
Applicant :- Naveen @ Bobby @ Naveen Kumar Jain And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Somdev Dixit
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Dileep Kumar Yadav,G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicants in Court today, is taken on record. Office is directed to register the same.
2. Heard Mr. Somdev Dixit, learned counsel for applicants, Mr. Dileep Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Mr. Rizwan Ahmad, learned counsel for the State and perused the material available on record.
3. The instant application has been filed to quash the cognizance order dated 15.09.2022 as well as the entire criminal proceeding of S.T. No.1567 of 2022 (State Vs. Dashrath Sharma & Others), arising out of Case Crime No.636 of 2021, under Sections 420, 504, 506 I.P.C. & Section 3(1)(da)(dha) of SC/ST Act, Police Station-Uttar, District-Firozabad, pending before the Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Firozabad.
4. Brief facts of the case are; an application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been moved by opposite party no.2 before the Court concerned, thereafter, an FIR has been lodged on 02.10.2021 at 14:00 hours, under Sections 420, 376, 377, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Sections 3(2)(v) of S.C./S.T. Act, against four named accused including the applicants with the allegations that the opposite party no.2 is a poor person belonging to the scheduled castes category. Her husband is a simple person. They earned livelihood by working hard as labourers. Her daughter was of marriageable age, therefore, the alleged accused Naveen @ Boby and Shiva Jain, who are maternal uncle and nephew came with a proposal of marriage. Accordingly, daughter of opposite party no.2 was shown to the boy's family at the house of Shiv @ Shiva Jain and opposite party no.2 agreed for the marriage. They asked the opposite party no.2 to accompany them to Rajasthan, where they will solemnize the marriage of her daughter. Accordingly, on 06.05.2021 the opposite party no.2 along with her family members and relatives went to Jaipur where they were asked to stay in a school. The opposite party no.2 spent Rs.1,50,000/- in the marriage of her daughter which was solemnized in Jaipur. The opposite party no.2 returned after the marriage of her daughter. On the next day she was informed by her daughter that they have been cheated as her marriage was performed with Dashrath, who using caste indicative language stated that he has given Rs.10,00,000/- to the alleged accused persons who are applicants and has purchased her. There are allegations of forcefully establishing sexual relationship with her. After receiving the aforesaid information, the opposite party no.2 approached the applicants, who did not cooperate with her and admitted that they have taken Rs.10,00,000/- from Dashrath and sold her daughter. In case, she raised her voice and alarm or approaches the police, they being powerful persons will get her arrested and also threatened her for dire consequences. After investigation, charge sheet has been submitted on 16.03.2022 and the applicants have been summoned by order dated 15.09.2022 under Sections 420, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Sections 3(1)(da)(dha) of S.C./S.T. Act.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicants are innocent and the present FIR has been lodged with false and frivolous allegations. As per the version of the FIR as well as the statements of the victim recorded u/s 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. all the allegations are against Dashrath with whom marriage of daughter of opposite party no.2 was solemnized as per her consent and wish. Placing reliance upon the statements of independent charge sheet witnesses namely, Ram Rakha and Hafeez, he submits that applicants are said to be mediators in the marriage of daughter of opposite party no.2. The girl (victim) has left the house because she did not want to stay with her husband. There are no allegations against the applicants in the aforesaid statements, therefore, no offence under the relevant sections is made out. Several other grounds have been taken on behalf of the applicants to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against them. The circumstances, as per the records, led to the false implication of the applicants have also been touched upon in the affidavit.
6. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submit that although opposite party no.2 was given an impression that the applicants have informed about marriage of her daughter with Dashrath, was by her consent. Later, on the information as given by her daughter who was cheated and was a victim has stated about her harassment by way of use of caste indicative language and was sexually assaulted by Dashrath. It has also been stated in the version of the FIR as well as statements recorded u/s 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. that the applicants who acted as mediators were persons who sold the daughter of O.P No. 2 after taking Rs.10,00,000/- from Dashrath. They further submit that the applicants have cheated the opposite party no.2 by informing that Dashrath is the proper person and accordingly, marriage of her daughter was solemnized with Dashrath, therefore, applicants have destroyed the life of daughter of opposite party no.2. From the statements of the victim recorded u/s 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. the manner in which the accused Dashrath has behaved with her and the fact that he has stated about purchasing her from the applicants also goes to show that the victim has been intentionally cheated and harassed mentally, physically and sexually also. Caste indicative words have also been used by Dashrath. They further submit that there is nothing on record to show that the applicants have not avoided facing the trial as the charge sheet is of the year 2022 where the applicants have been summoned on 15.04.2022. The proceedings of the court concerned have been held up on account of non appearance of the applicants and as such the applicants are fleeing from the process of law without any reasonable cause.
7. "Fleeing from justice" refers to the act of accused in evading or avoiding arrest, prosecution, or punishment for a crime. An accused in aforesaid act tries to avoid facing criminal prosecution by often avoiding summons, warrants and other process issued by the court. An accused is legally bound to comply with the summons issued by the court of law except where the process is challenged before the higher forum by the accused. Any person who has been issued process by court of law cannot be permitted to evade the same thereby not permitting the court of law to proceed in the administration of justice. The said act of accused in avoiding the process of court of law without any justification effects the very cause of justice. An accused fleeing from justice without reasonable cause has the effect of stopping/slowing the criminal process of law which effects the cause of speedy justice to the victim or society at large. Non appearance of an accused before the court concerned when the summons has been served (without reasonable explanation for non-appearance) may be indicative of the fact that such accused do not have respect to the process of law."
8. It is important for rule of law to prevail that the criminal trial is completed without delay. Where an accused flees from the process of law and thereby avoids appearing before the court, the very concept of speedy trial is put at peril and justice to the victim is delayed.
9. The Supreme Court in Vipan Kumar Dhir v. State of Punjab, (2021) 15 SCC 518 has observed that while granting relief, the possibility of the accused to influence prosecution witnesses, fleeing from justice or creating other impediments in the fair investigation, ought not to be overlooked.
10. While considering the question of whether an accused is fleeing from justice, the conduct of the accused in respect of the process of law is required to be considered. In criminal prosecution when the court find material against the accused sufficient for prosecution, the court issues summons or warrants for appearance to the accused for participation in the trial. When the summons or warrants are served on the accused in accordance with law then duty is cast on the accused to appear before the court concerned except where there exists justification for non-appearance of the accused before the accused. An accused who is served with the process of court and fails to appear before the court concerned without any reasonable cause can be said to be fleeing from the process of law.
11. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for the applicants could not overcome the same.
12. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present application.
13. This Court finds that the averments made in the application as well as grounds taken call for adjudication on pure questions of fact which may adequately be adjudicated upon only by the trial court and while doing so even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court in this case. The issue whether it is appropriate for this Court being the Highest Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the charge-sheet, cognizance and the proceedings at the stage when the Magistrate has merely issued process against the applicants and trial is to yet to commence only on the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicants that present criminal case initiated by opposite party no.2 is not only malicious but also are abuse of the process of law has elaborately been discussed by the Apex Court in the following judgments:-
(i) R.P. Kapur Versus State of Punjab; AIR 1960 SC 866,
(ii) State of Haryana & Ors. Versus Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors.;1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335,
(iii) State of Bihar & Anr. Versus P.P. Sharma & Anr.; 1992 Supp (1) SCC 222,
(iv) Zandu Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd. & Ors. Versus Mohammad Shariful Haque & Anr.; 2005 (1) SCC 122,
(v) M. N. Ojha Vs. Alok Kumar Srivastava; 2009 (9) SCC 682,
(vi) Mohd. Allauddin Khan Vs. The State of Bihar & Others; 2019 0 Supreme (SC) 454,
(vii) Nallapareddy Sridhar Reddy Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.; 2020 0 Supreme (SC) 45,
(viii) Rajeev Kaurav Vs. Balasahab & Others; 2020 0 Supreme (SC) 143,
(ix) M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra; 2021 SCC Online SC 315.
14. In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not deem it proper, and therefore cannot be persuaded to have a pre-trial before the actual trial begins. A threadbare discussion of various facts and circumstances, as they emerge from the allegations made against the accused, is being purposely avoided by the Court for the reason, lest the same might cause any prejudice to either side during trial. But it shall suffice to observe that the perusal of the F.I.R. and the material collected by the Investigating Officer on the basis of which the charge sheet has been submitted makes out a prima facie case against the accused at this stage and there appear to be sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. I do not find any justification to quash the charge sheet or the proceedings against the applicants arising out of them as the case does not fall in any of the categories recognized by the Apex Court which may justify their quashing.
15. The prayer for quashing the impugned cognizance order as well as the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case are refused, as I do not see any abuse of the court's process at this pre-trial stage.
16. The present application has no merit and is, accordingly, rejected.
Order Date :- 23.4.2025
Rahul.
