Allahabad High Court
Tasleem Beg And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 20 February, 2025
Author: Manju Rani Chauhan
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:25041
Court No. - 52
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 33374 of 2024
Applicant :- Tasleem Beg And 4 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Ansar Ahmad,Mohd Akram
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
1. Mr. Irshad Ahmad, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Ansar Ahmad, learned counsel for applicants and Mr. Mayank Awasthi, learned counsel for the State are present.
2. When the Court was asked to Mr. Irshad Ahmad, learned Advocate, to argue the case on merits, he is not prepared and requests to pass over the case for today.
3. The present application has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 01.03.2020 as well as summoning order dated 10.06.2020 passed by A.C.J.M. Court No.8, Bareilly in Case No.397 of 2020, arising out of Case Crime No.299 of 2019, under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 I.P.C. with respect to applicant nos.1 & 3, and under Section 323, 506 I.P.C. with respect to applicant nos.4 and 5, Police Station-Bithri, District-Bareilly, pending in the Court of C.J.M., Bareilly.
4. Heard learned counsel for the State and perused the record.
5. Learned A.G.A. points out that charge sheet is of the year 2022 where the applicants have been summoned by order dated 10.06.2022. He further submits that on 01.10.2024 request has been made to refer the matter to the Mediation Center, High Court Allahabad and the Court has referred the matter to the Mediation Centre on the same day but the parties have not appeared before the Mediation Centre and has not complied with the order dated 01.10.2024. There is also nothing on record to show that applicants are not avoiding facing trial. 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.
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. Learned A.G.A. further submits that statements of charge sheet witnesses have also not been annexed, therefore, at this stage it will not be possible to see that charge sheet has properly been filed or not. He further submits that 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.
11 . This Court feels that request of learned counsel for the applicants to pass over the case and post it after one month cannot be entertained as earlier by order dated 01.10.2024 the matter was referred to Mediation Centre and next date fixed was 04.02.2025, however, on the basis of Mediation Centre report dated 03.12.02024 the applicants have not complied with the order dated 01.10.2024 and have not deposited the money before the Mediation Centre as directed by this Court, due to which notices to the parties could not be issued. Hence, the interim order, granted to the applicants on 01.10.2024 for the purpose of mediation, was vacated by order dated 04.02.2025. The conduct of learned counsel for the applicants as well as the applicants goes to prove that they are avoiding this Court as well as trial Court also.
12. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for the applicants could not overcome the same.
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.
14. In view of the aforesaid, the present application is dismissed.
Order Date :- 20.2.2025
Rahul.
