Allahabad High Court
Umesh Yadav vs State Of Up And 3 Others on 8 January, 2025
Author: Manju Rani Chauhan
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:3605
Court No. - 52
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 35454 of 2024
Applicant :- Umesh Yadav
Opposite Party :- State Of Up And 3 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjeev Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for applicant, 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 applicant challenging the charge sheet dated 23.08.2015 arising out of Case Crime No. 216 of 2015, under Sections 363, 366, 498, 376 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Barahalganj, District Gorakhpur and the proceedings of S.S.T. No. 359 of 2015, State v. Umesh Yadav, pending in the court of Special Judge-I, Gorakhpur.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the victim has married the applicant, therefore, offence under the relevant sections is not made out.
4. At the outset, learned counsel for the State submits that the chargesheet is of the year 2015, wherein statements of prosecution witnesses have already been examined. From the record it is clear that earlier the applicant had been absconding, therefore, non-bailable warrants were issued. He approached this Court by filing Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 20923 of 2024 and was enlarged on bail. It shows that the applicant is avoiding to face trial and nothing has been placed on record to show that the applicant has not avoided appearance on the dates fixed before the court concerned.
5. Learned A.G.A. has also pointed out that the victim has performed second marriage, therefore, it cannot be said that the offence under Section 376 is not made out.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Allegations levelled against the applicant regarding dowry and harassment are false. He further submits that due to personal difficulty the applicant could not appear before the Court below.
7. This Court finds that the submissions made by the applicant's 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 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.
8. 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 applicant 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.
9. The record reflects that the applicant has deliberately avoided the process of law, therefore, they cannot be entitled to any relief from this Court in exercise of extraordinary powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. He has 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 applicant and as such he is fleeing from the process of law without any reasonable cause.
10. "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.
11. 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.
12. 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 applicant 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.
13. The prayer for quashing the impugned charge-sheet dated 23.08.2015 and cognizance order dated 25.11.2015 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.
13. The present application has no merit and is, accordingly, rejected.
Order Date :- 8.1.2025
DS
