Allahabad High Court
Deepak And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 25 April, 2025
Author: Manju Rani Chauhan
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:63596
Court No. - 52
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 5654 of 2025
Applicant :- Deepak And 4 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Rajeev Mishra,Ramesh Kumar Panday
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
On the basis of instructions, learned A.G.A. for the State submits that the summons have been served upon the applicants on 22.10.2022 and 11.09.2024. There is nothing on record to show that the applicants have not avoided facing trial.
When confronted with the aforesaid, learned counsel for the applicants submits that verbal information about the summons was given to the applicants, however, he could not dispute about the fact that the service of summons is there through legal heirs.
Heard Mr. Rajeev Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants as well as Mr. S.N. Tiwari, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
This application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed to quash the impugned Charge Sheet No.136/2021 dated 27.06.2021 along with Cognizance order dated 18.02.2022 along with the entire proceedings of Case No.248 of 2022 (State vs. Deepak & Others), arising out of Case Crime No.18/2020, under Sections 147, 149, 452, 323, 504, 506, 354B I.P.C., Police Station- Baharia, District- Prayagraj, pending in the court of A.C.J.M.-02, Allahabad.
Brief facts of the case are that an FIR has been lodged by opposite party no.2 against six named accused including the applicants who are five in number with the allegations that some objectionable message was sent by accused Rajesh who resides in the neighborhood of opposite party no.2. The other incidents of 19.01.2020 and 20.01.2020 have also been detailed in the FIR. On 20.01.2020, it is alleged that the applicants assaulted the opposite party no.2 when she raised an objection, they also tried to outrage her modesty. After investigation, charge sheet has been submitted hence, the present case has been filed.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that earlier an FIR has been lodged from the side of the applicants against opposite party no.2 and her family members for the incident dated 20.01.2020 at about 12:30 hours. On the same date, as a counter blast, the present FIR has been lodged. As per the statement of the opposite party no.2, the allegation of outraging modesty is only against accused Rajesh and there is general allegation of assaulting against the other accused persons. He further contends that no injury has been caused to opposite party no.2. He further submits that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a mala fide intention for the purpose of causing harassment. He, therefore, submits that the charge-sheet, Cognizance order as well as entire proceedings be quashed by this Court as the same is an abuse process of Court.
Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submits that the incident dated 20.01.2020 at about 12:30 hours is admitted by the applicants as well as they themselves have lodged the FIR for the said date of incident on the same day wherein injuries have been caused to the side of the applicants in the present case. Thus, it cannot be seen that who is the aggressor at this stage while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS and conducting a mini trial. He further submits that the applicants have been summoned in the year of 2022 and they have not placed anything on record to show that they have appeared before the court concerned. He further submits that all the contentions raised by the applicants' counsel relates to disputed questions of fact. On the basis of material on record after conducting of statutory investigation under Chapter XII Cr.P.C. by the investigating officer, a strong prima facie case is made out against the applicants for the commission of the alleged incident. In support of his case, learned A.G.A. has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Dilbag Rai Vs. State of Haryana & Others reported in AIR 2019 (SC) 693 and Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Arvind Khanna reported in MANU/SC/1432/2019.
It is to be seen that in the present case the applicants have been summoned in the year 2022. However, the applicants have not appeared before the court concerned in pursuance to the aforesaid summoning order. The applicants have failed to substantiate before this Court in view of the reasoning stated hereinabove that due to some personal difficulty, they could not appear before the Court concerned. 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.
"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.
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.
The Supreme court in Vipan Kumar Dhir v. State of Punjab, (2021) 15 SCC 518 has observed that while granting bail, 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.
I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present application.
This Court finds that the submissions made by the applicants' learned counsel 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 528 BNSS to quash the charge-sheet and the proceedings at the stage when the Magistrate has merely issued process against the applicants and trial is to yet to come only on the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicants that present criminal case initiated by opposite party no.2 are not only malicious but also abuse of 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, and lastly
(viii) Rajeev Kaurav Vs. Balasahab & Others; 2020 0 Supreme (SC) 143.
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.
The prayer for quashing the impugned charge-sheet dated 27.06.2021 and Cognizance order dated 18.02.2022 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.
The present application has no merit and is, accordingly, rejected.
Order Date :- 25.4.2025
Kalp Nath Singh
