State v. Deepesh), under Sections
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:176407 Court No. - 73 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 29915 of 2024 Applicant :- Deepesh And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Legal Reasoning
5. It is to be seen that in the present case the applicants have been summoned in the year 2021. However, the applicant no.1 has not appeared before the court concerned in pursuance to the aforesaid summoning order. The applicant no.1 has failed to substantiate before this Court in view of the reasoning stated hereinabove that due to personal difficulty he 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 no.1 and as such the applicant no.1 is 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, the summons has been served on the applicant no.1 in the year 2021, no reasonable explanation has been offered by the learned counsel for the applicants for non- appearance of the applicant no.1 before the court concerned in pursuance to summons/warrant issued by the court concerned. Learned counsel for the applicants has not shown any facts and circumstances to demonstrate that applicant no.1 was not fleeing from process of law or evading justice. In the facts and circumstances the applicant no.1 is fleeing from the process of law and evading justice, as such does not deserve any protection in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court. 11. It is to be seen that the applicant no.1 is avoiding the summons since the year 2021. Even in the year 2023, applicant nos.2 & 3 have appeared and enlarged on bail but the applicant no.1 has not appeared before the court concerned. 12. In view of the facts, it is evident that the applicant no.1 has no respect for the summons of the court and has remained absent from the court proceedings for a period of about 3 years which is indicative of the fact that the applicant no.1 is fleeing from the process of law. Therefore, prayer in respect of applicant no.1 is refused and the application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed. 13. Applicant Nos.2 & 3 are directed to face trial without seeking any adjournment. Order Date :- 11.11.2024 Rahul.
Arguments
1. Heard Mr. Sanjay Tiwari, learned counsel for applicants and Mr. Triloki Singh, learned A.G.A. for State. 2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 07.08.2021 as well as N.B.W. dated 13.06.2024 and the entire criminal proceeding of Case Crime No.36 of 2021 (State Vs. Deepesh), under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 406 I.P.C. & Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Mahila Thana, District-Gorakhpur, pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division-4, Gorakhpur. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. Allegations levelled against the applicants regarding dowry and harassment are false. He further submits that charge sheet has been submitted in the year 2021 and learned Magistrate has taken cognizance in the year 2021 and summoned the applicants by fixing 18.12.2021. Applicant nos.2 and 3 surrendered before the Court concerned and enlarged on bail on 06.06.2023. He further submits that due to personal difficulty the applicant no.1 Deepesh could not appear before the Court below, therefore, non bailable warrant and proceeding u/s 82 Cr.P.C. have been issued against him on 13.06.2024. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that some time may be granted to the applicant no.1 to surrender/appear before the Court concerned. 4. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer.