Allahabad High Court

Jiyaulhak And 5 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 24 February, 2025

Author: Manju Rani Chauhan

Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?
 
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:26048
 
Court No. - 52
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 40383 of 2024
 

 
Applicant :- Jiyaulhak And 5 Others
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Gyan Prakash Mishra
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

1. Heard Sri G.P. Mishra, learned counsel for applicants, Sri Mayank Awasthi, learned Brief Holder for State and perused the record.

2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed by the applicants challenging the cognizance order dated 28.03.2022, charge-sheet dated 16.02.2021 arising out of Case Crime No. 42 of 2020, under Sections 498-A, 342, 323, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Ahmadgarh, District Bulandshahr and the proceedings of Case No. 1018 of 2022, State v. Jiyaulhak and others, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Bulandshahr.

3. At the outset, learned A.G.A. submits that date of chargesheet is 16.02.2021, wherein the applicants have been summoned on 28.03.2022 and nothing has been placed on record to show that the applicants have not avoided appearance on the dates fixed before the court concerned.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that there is some delay in filing the present petition as the parties were trying to settle the matter out of court. They are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. Allegations levelled against the applicants regarding dowry and harassment are false.

5. The record reflects that the applicants have deliberately avoided the process of law and the learned counsel for the applicants could not give proper reply that the applicants are not avoiding facing trial, therefore, they are not entitled to any relief from this Court in exercise of extraordinary powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. They have failed to substantiate before this Court in view of the reasoning stated hereinabove that due to 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 they 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 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.

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. In the present case, no reasonable explanation has been offered by the learned counsel for the applicants for non-appearance of the applicants before the court concerned. Learned counsel for the applicants has not shown any facts and circumstances to demonstrate that applicants were not fleeing from process of law or evading justice. In the facts and circumstances the applicants are fleeing from the process of law and evading justice, as such do not deserve any protection in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court.

11. The record appended with the petition in itself demonstrates that the applicants are avoiding the proceedings.

12. As regards other submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants, this Court finds that it calls 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 and the proceedings at the stage when the Magistrate has merely issued process against the applicant and trial is yet to come only on the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant 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 laslty

(viii) Rajeev Kaurav Vs. Balasahab & Others; 2020 0 Supreme (SC) 143.

13. It is evident that the applicants have no respect for the proceedings of the court and have remained absent from the court proceedings since 2022 which is indicative of the fact that the applicants are fleeing from the process of law. Therefore, prayer in respect of applicants is refused and the application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed.

Order Date :- 24.2.2025