Allahabad High Court
Narendra Pratap Singh @ Neetu And 5 ... vs State Of U.P. And Another on 19 February, 2025
Author: Manju Rani Chauhan
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:23722
Court No. - 52
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 31291 of 2024
Applicant :- Narendra Pratap Singh @ Neetu And 5 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Dalvir Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
1. Heard Mr. Dalvir Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Mayank Awasthi, learned A.G.A for the State.
2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the charge sheet No. 264/2023 dated 21.05.2023, cognizance/summoning order dated 23.01.2024 as well as entire proceedings of Case No. 536 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No.642 of 2022, under Sections 498A, 323, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Fatehpur, pending in the court of Civil Judge (J.D.)/F.T.C./C.A.W., Fatehpur.
3. On 01.10.2024, a Coordinate Bench of this Court has referred the matter to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court and directed the applicants to deposit an amount of Rs.30,000/- within three weeks at the Mediation Centre. It was also mentioned in the order that no time extension application shall be allowed without any good ground.
4. On the aforesaid, learned counsel for the applicants further submits that FIR has been lodged with false and frivolous allegations against the husband as well as his entire family members with omnibus, general and vague allegations. He further submits that now a days the provision of Section 498-A IPC is being used as weapon of harassment, because this is the simplest way to harass and get the husband and his other relatives arrested by levelling frivolous allegations against them. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra and another vs State of U.P. and another, 2012 (10) SCC 741. He further submits that due to personal difficulty the applicants could not deposit the money before the mediation centre of this Court. 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.
5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. for the State submits that charge-sheet in the present matter has been submitted on 21.05.2023 and the applicants have been summoned on 23.01.2024. He further submits that there is nothing on record to show that applicants are not avoiding facing trial. There is no whisper as to why the applicants did not appear before the court concerned. Though he raised several arguments before the Court challenging the proceedings in view of the aforesaid case, but he could not show any good ground for entertaining this application after such a belated stage.
6. In the case of Northern Indian Glass Industries Vs. Jaswant Singh & ors., reported in AIR 2003 SC 234, the Apex Court has held that the High Court cannot ignore the delay and laches in approaching the Court and there must be satisfactory explanation by the petitioner/applicant as how he could not come to the Court well in time.
7. Further in the the case of Printers (Mysore) Ltd. Vs. M.A. Rasheed & Anr. reported in (2004) 4 SCC 460, the Apex Court has held that the High Court should have dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches.
8. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court feels that applicants are deliberately avoiding facing trial. The matter has been lingered on unnecessarily which hampers proper functioning of the Court. Once applicants have obtained interim relief and enjoyed protection from 01.10.2024 till today and are flouting the order of this Court. Such conduct of the applicants cannot be appreciated.
9. "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."
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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. Interim order, granted earlier, stands discharge.
14. In view of the aforesaid, the present application is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 19.2.2025
Abhishek Singh
