Allahabad High Court
Akshay Banga And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 5 February, 2025
Author: Manju Rani Chauhan
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:15916
Court No. - 52
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21768 of 2023
Applicant :- Akshay Banga And 3 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Sandeep Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
1. Heard Mr. Sandeep Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for applicants and Ms. Kirti Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the charge sheet no.299/2020 dated 31.12.2020 in Criminal Case No.3057/2021, (State Vs. Akshay Banga and others), arising out of Case Crime No.206/2020, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Sayadnagli, District-J.P. Nagar (Amroha), pending in the Court of A.C.J.M.-I, J.P. Nagar (Amroha).
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that FIR has been lodged with false and frivolous allegations. There are general omnibus and vague allegations against all the applicants, therefore, in view of Geeta Mehrotra and another vs State of U.P. and another, 2012 (10) SCC 741, applicants are entitled for protection. He further submits that applicants have been granted anticipatory bail till submission of charge sheet and charge sheet has been submitted on 31.12.2020. He further submits that due to personal difficulty the applicants could not appear before the Court concerned. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicants to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against them. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicants have also been touched upon at length.
4. Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submits that as per the report from the Mediation Centre dated 23.03.2024 the applicants have not deposited the money as directed by order dated 26.06.2023, therefore once they have obtained the order and enjoyed protection from 26.06.2023 till today. The applicants have also failed to substantiate before this Court that as to why 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.
5. Learned A.G.A. further submits that the charge sheet is of the year 2020 and the applicants have been summoned on 24.03.2021, after which nothing has been placed on record to show that applicants are not avoiding facing trial. He further submits that statements of charge sheet witnesses have also not been annexed and the material collected by Investigating Officer during course of investigation on the basis of which, he has formed an opinion against the applicants, has neither been detailed in the affidavit accompanying of present application nor the copies of the same have been brought on record. Referring to the judgment of Supreme Court in Kaptan Singh Vs. State of U.P., (2021) 9 SCC 35, it is thus urged by the learned A.G.A. that in the absence of above, the challenge laid to the charge sheet cannot be examined by this Court.
6. "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."
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. As per the report from the Mediation Centre dated 23.03.2024 the applicants have not deposited the money as directed by order dated 26.06.2023, therefore once they have obtained the order and enjoyed protection from 26.06.2023 till today, thus, flouting the order of this Court. Such conduct of the applicants cannot be appreciated.
11. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for the applicants could not overcome the same.
12. Having heard the learned counsel for applicants and learned A.G.A. for State and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that the objection raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to this application have borne out from the record and further the same could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for applicants, therefore, no good ground exists to entertain the present application.
13. In view of the aforesaid, the present application is dismissed.
Order Date :- 5.2.2025
Rahul.
