High Court

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the State as well as perused the entire material available on record.

2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 25.06.2019 and cognizance dated 17.07.2019 as well as the entire proceedings of Case Crime No.0042 of 2019, U/s 498A, 306 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Khanpur, District-Ghazipur, pending before the court concerned.

3. Brief facts of the case are that an FIR was lodged on 24.04.2019 at about 09:15 hrs by the opposite party no.2 against three persons including the applicant, under Sections 498A, 302 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act with the allegations that the marriage of daughter of opposite party no.2, namely, Pushpanjali was solemnized with son of applicant in the year 2009 according to Hindu Rites and Rituals, in which gifts have been given as per their capacity, but the family members of her in-laws including husband were not happy with the dowry and they tortured the informant's daughter for additional dowry demand. Rs.1,50,000/- cash was given by the opposite party no.2 in order to convince the alleged accused persons. Despite the aforesaid, the informant's daughter was again tortured by the applicant and other family members raising additional dowry demand. The daughter of informant was blessed with three children. In order to materialize the difference between the informant's daughter and other family members, more money was transferred in the account of applicant's son on a number of occasions. Subsequently, on 16.04.2019, the informant's daughter- in-law received a phone call on her Mobile No.8005127212 from Mobile No.6394259943 of Anand Shukla, through which the informant's daughter; Pushpanjali informed that she was beaten by the applicant as well as other family members raising demand of one lakh rupees. She again called from the same number on informant's Mobile No.9452565632 and said that in case the informant did not fulfill their demand, they would kill her. While she was talking on the phone, it appears that someone snatched her phone and it was disconnected. After the aforesaid, at about 04:30 p.m., the informant received information that Pushpanjali sustained burn injuries and she was being taken to Regional Hospital, Varanasi where she expired during treatment. The informant alongwith his relatives reached the hospital and saw the body of his deceased daughter in the mortuary of the said hospital, from where itself the opposite party no.2 dialed number 100 and informed the police that his daughter has been done to death by the applicant as well as alleged accused persons, who are named in the FIR. After investigation, chargesheet has been submitted 25.06.2019 against the applicant, who is mother-in-law of the deceased and husband of the deceased, under Sections 498A, 306 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act. Pursuant to which the applicant as well as husband of the deceased have been summoned.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case as the applicant, who is mother-in-law was living separately from her son and had nothing to do with the alleged incident. He further submits that the daughter-in-law of the applicant has committed suicide as she was suffering from mental ailments for which she was being treated since 2013 itself. In support of which, he has placed documents from Page 70 onwards. Relying upon the statement of independent witness and one Kamlesh Yadav, who was teaching at the same college where the applicant has been teaching, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not present at the time of incident. Therefore, the offence under the relevant sections is not made out against the applicant. He further submits that from the statement of the informant itself, it is clear that though the information was given by the deceased to his daughter- in-law that she had been threatened for dire consequences, the informant did not take it seriously, therefore, it is clear that the story has been built up to involve the applicant in the incident, which is not being proved. 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 There is no documentary evidence regarding separate living of the applicant. As regards from the statement of informant and other independent witness, it is clear that the deceased has been mentally and physically tortured by the applicant as well as her husband due to which she committed suicide. Thus, the chargesheet has been submitted under Section 306 IPC and not 302 IPC. He further submits that the offence under the relevant section is made out as such circumstance has been created by the applicant leaving no option for the deceased to commit suicide. 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 charge sheet is of the year 2019 and nothing has been placed to prove that the applicant is not avoiding facing 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 25.06.2019 and cognizance/summoning order dated 17.07.2019 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 :- 20.1.2025 Jitendra/-

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the State as well as perused the entire material available on record.

2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 25.06.2019 and cognizance dated 17.07.2019 as well as the entire proceedings of Case Crime No.0042 of 2019, U/s 498A, 306 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Khanpur, District-Ghazipur, pending before the court concerned.

3. Brief facts of the case are that an FIR was lodged on 24.04.2019 at about 09:15 hrs by the opposite party no.2 against three persons including the applicant, under Sections 498A, 302 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act with the allegations that the marriage of daughter of opposite party no.2, namely, Pushpanjali was solemnized with son of applicant in the year 2009 according to Hindu Rites and Rituals, in which gifts have been given as per their capacity, but the family members of her in-laws including husband were not happy with the dowry and they tortured the informant's daughter for additional dowry demand. Rs.1,50,000/- cash was given by the opposite party no.2 in order to convince the alleged accused persons. Despite the aforesaid, the informant's daughter was again tortured by the applicant and other family members raising additional dowry demand. The daughter of informant was blessed with three children. In order to materialize the difference between the informant's daughter and other family members, more money was transferred in the account of applicant's son on a number of occasions. Subsequently, on 16.04.2019, the informant's daughter- in-law received a phone call on her Mobile No.8005127212 from Mobile No.6394259943 of Anand Shukla, through which the informant's daughter; Pushpanjali informed that she was beaten by the applicant as well as other family members raising demand of one lakh rupees. She again called from the same number on informant's Mobile No.9452565632 and said that in case the informant did not fulfill their demand, they would kill her. While she was talking on the phone, it appears that someone snatched her phone and it was disconnected. After the aforesaid, at about 04:30 p.m., the informant received information that Pushpanjali sustained burn injuries and she was being taken to Regional Hospital, Varanasi where she expired during treatment. The informant alongwith his relatives reached the hospital and saw the body of his deceased daughter in the mortuary of the said hospital, from where itself the opposite party no.2 dialed number 100 and informed the police that his daughter has been done to death by the applicant as well as alleged accused persons, who are named in the FIR. After investigation, chargesheet has been submitted 25.06.2019 against the applicant, who is mother-in-law of the deceased and husband of the deceased, under Sections 498A, 306 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act. Pursuant to which the applicant as well as husband of the deceased have been summoned.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case as the applicant, who is mother-in-law was living separately from her son and had nothing to do with the alleged incident. He further submits that the daughter-in-law of the applicant has committed suicide as she was suffering from mental ailments for which she was being treated since 2013 itself. In support of which, he has placed documents from Page 70 onwards. Relying upon the statement of independent witness and one Kamlesh Yadav, who was teaching at the same college where the applicant has been teaching, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not present at the time of incident. Therefore, the offence under the relevant sections is not made out against the applicant. He further submits that from the statement of the informant itself, it is clear that though the information was given by the deceased to his daughter- in-law that she had been threatened for dire consequences, the informant did not take it seriously, therefore, it is clear that the story has been built up to involve the applicant in the incident, which is not being proved. 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 There is no documentary evidence regarding separate living of the applicant. As regards from the statement of informant and other independent witness, it is clear that the deceased has been mentally and physically tortured by the applicant as well as her husband due to which she committed suicide. Thus, the chargesheet has been submitted under Section 306 IPC and not 302 IPC. He further submits that the offence under the relevant section is made out as such circumstance has been created by the applicant leaving no option for the deceased to commit suicide. 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 charge sheet is of the year 2019 and nothing has been placed to prove that the applicant is not avoiding facing 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 25.06.2019 and cognizance/summoning order dated 17.07.2019 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 :- 20.1.2025 Jitendra/-