Anil Kumar Tiwari And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 3142 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Anil Kumar Tiwari And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 8 January, 2025

Author: Manju Rani Chauhan

Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:4364
 
Court No. - 52
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 35391 of 2024
 

 
Applicant :- Anil Kumar Tiwari And 4 Others
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Kunwar Jitendra Bahadur Singh,Sanjay Kumar Mishra
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
 

1. Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Mayank Awasthi, learned counsel for the State as well as perused the entire material available on record.

2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge-sheet No.372/2022, dated 17.10.2022 and cognizance/summoning order dated 23.08.2024 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.11551 of 2024 (State Vs. Anil Kumar and another), arising out of Case Crime No.0281 of 2022, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Ajitmal, District-Auraiya, pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Auraiya.

3. Brief facts of the case are that an FIR has been lodged through an application U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 14.07.2022 at about 00:24 hrs. by the opposite party no.2 against the applicants with the allegations that the marriage of opposite party no.2 was solemnized with son of applicant no.1 on 28.11.2019, according to Hindu Rites and Rituals, in which her parents had given Rs.5 lakhs, jewellery etc. to her in-laws. After two years of marriage, husband of opposite party no.2 suffered from hepatitis and was undergoing treatment at KGMC Hospital, Kalyanpur and P.G.I. A demand of Rs.1.5 lakh as additional dowry was raised by the applicants, which was utilized for the treatment of her husband, however, her husband died on 20.12.2021. After his death, the applicants mentally and physically tortured her. After 15 days of death of her husband, she was forced to leave her in-laws' house and she managed to come back to her in-laws' house after one month, where they harassed her, demanding Rs.3 lakhs as dowry. It has been specifically stated that brother-in-law, namely, Madhav Tiwari has sexually exploited her. On 05.03.2020, the opposite party no.2 was beaten by the applicants and thrown out of the house. She was threatened not to come back without three lakh rupees. The opposite party no.2 shared the aforesaid incident with her family members. Despite the intervention of responsible persons, they refused to bring her back. On 04.05.2022, all the applicants went to parents' place of opposite party no.2 where they abused and assaulted her and also stated that she would not be permitted to come back to their house without bringing three lakh rupees. After investigation, chargesheet has been submitted against the applicants.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. The independent witnesses have also denied any such incident as narrated in the FIR. He further submits that the opposite party no.2 has lodged the present FIR in order to exert pressure for having share in the property of the applicants. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention. He, therefore, submits that the charge-sheet, summoning order as well as entire proceedings be quashed by this Court as the same is an abuse process of Court.

5. Learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants by submitting that from the statement of chargesheet witnesses as well as statement of opposite party no.2 under Sections 161 & 164 Cr.P.C., all the offences under the relevant sections are made out. He further submits that all the contentions raised by the applicants' counsel relate to disputed questions of fact. On the basis of material on record after conducting of statutory investigation under Chapter XII Cr.P.C. by the investigating officer, a strong prima facie case is made out against the applicant for the commission of the alleged incident. In support of his case, learned AGA has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Dilbag Rai Vs. State of Haryana & Others reported in AIR 2019 (SC) 693 and Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Arvind Khanna reported in MANU/SC/1432/2019.

6. Learned AGA for the State further submits that the statements of chargesheet witnesses have not been annexed from which it cannot be proved that the charge sheet as submitted against the applicants is not proper. In support of his submission, he has relied upon the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Kaptan Singh Vs. State of U.P., reported in (2021) 9 SCC 35. Lastly, he submits that the charge sheet has been submitted on 17.10.2022 and they have been summoned on 23.08.2024. Despite passage of nearly four months, the applicants have not appeared to face trial as such the applicants are fleeing from the process of law without any reasonable cause.

7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present application.

8. This Court finds that the submissions made by the applicants' 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 applicants and trial is to yet to come only on the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicants 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

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

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. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for the applicants could not overcome the same.

14. 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 applicants 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.

15. The prayer for quashing the impugned charge-sheet dated 17.10.2022 and summoning order dated 23.08.2024 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.

16. The present application has no merit and is, accordingly, rejected.

Order Date :- 8.1.2025

Jitendra/-