High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:189959 Court No. - 52 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 20806 of 2024 Applicant :- Devpal And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pragati,Shaili Ganguly Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J. 1. Heard Ms. Shaili Ganguly, learned counsel for applicants and Mr. Mayank Awasthi, learned counsel for the State. 2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 21.11.2017 as well as B.W. dated 07.06.2024 passed by A.C.J.M.-I, Rampur and entire proceeding of
Facts
Case No.20/18 (State Vs. Devpal & Others), arising out of Case Crime No.631 of 2017, under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. & Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Shahbad, District-Rampur. 3. Brief facts of the case; that an FIR was lodged on 23.10.2017 at 15:25 hours, under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. & Section 3/4 D.P. Act against four named accused including the applicants with the allegations that informant had fixed the marriage of his daughter with applicant no.2 Sunny in October, 2016, pursuant to which ceremony of Godbharayi was performed on 30.11.2016 and the date of marriage was fixed as 23.11.2017. In April 2017, informant received a phone call from applicant no.1, who requested the informant to give Rs.1/- lakh for the purpose of purchasing a plot in the name of Sunny and daughter of informant. The informant gave the aforesaid money as it was for the purpose of purchasing the plot in the name of his daughter and Sunny. On 02.10.2017, the informant sent the Lagan Patrika to his daughter's in-laws through his nephew Veerpal and son Munendra, in which the date of marriage was fixed as 23.11.2017. Other details of ceremonies have been mentioned in the FIR. Few other demands were raised from the side of the applicants but when the informant expressed inability, they refused to marry his daughter, therefore the present FIR was lodged. After investigation charge sheet has been submitted against the applicants Devpal and Sunny. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that FIR has been lodged with false and frivolous allegations as it is the girl who never wanted to marry with Sunny applicant no.1 and therefore, in order to extract money and exert pressure upon the applicants the present FIR has been lodged. 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. Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submits that charge sheet is of the year 2017 and bailable warrants have also been issued against the applicants but they are not appearing before Court concerned. The applicants have 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 and 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 AGA that in the absence of above, the challenge laid to the charge sheet cannot be examined by this Court. He further submits that all the other contentions relate to disputed questions of fact. From perusal of
Legal Reasoning
the records, prima facie, it can not be said at this stage that no offence has been committed by the applicants. 11. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicants could not overcome the same. 12. 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. 13. In view of the aforesaid, the present application is dismissed. Order Date :- 4.12.2024 Rahul.