Criminal Case No. 26018 of 2023 · High Court

arising out of Case Crime No.0029 of 2023, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 406 I.P.C. and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Deoria, pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge (J.D.), F.T.C.-II, Deoria.

3. On 01.10.2024, a Coordinate Bench of this Court has referred the matter to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court and directed the applicants to deposit an amount of Rs.30,000/- within three weeks at the Mediation Centre. It was also mentioned in the order that no time extension application shall be allowed without any good ground.

4. In compliance of the order dated 01.10.2024, a mediation report is placed on record as is evident from office report dated

01.02.2025. As per the report the applicants have not deposited a sum of Rs.30,000/- as directed by this Court. Therefore, the applicants have flouted the order of this Court. Such conduct of the applicants cannot be appreciated.

5. At the very outset, learned A.G.A. for the State submits that charge-sheet in the present matter has been submitted on

27.09.2023, wherein applicants have been summoned on

19.12.2023. He further submits that there is nothing on record to show that applicants are not avoiding facing trial. He 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 A.G.A. that in the absence of above, the challenge laid to the charge sheet cannot be examined by this Court.

6. On the aforesaid, learned counsel for the applicants further submits that FIR has been lodged with false and frivolous allegations against the husband as well as his entire family members with omnibus, general and vague allegations. He further submits that now a days the provision of Section 498-A IPC is being used as weapon of harassment, because this is the simplest way to harass and get the husband and his other relatives arrested by levelling frivolous allegations against them. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra and another vs State of U.P. and another, 2012 (10) SCC 741. He further submits that due to personal difficulty the applicants could not deposit the money before the mediation centre of this Court. 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.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

8. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court feels that applicants are deliberately avoiding facing trial. The matter has been lingered on unnecessarily which hampers proper functioning of the Court.

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. The fact that the applicants have not deposited the amount as directed by this Court under order dated 01.10.2024 and have enjoyed the stay order also goes to show their conduct of avoiding this court, hence are not entitled for any relief, therefore, no good ground exists to entertain the present application.

14. In view of the aforesaid, the present application is dismissed. Order Date :- 19.2.2025 Abhishek Singh

arising out of Case Crime No.0029 of 2023, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 406 I.P.C. and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Deoria, pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge (J.D.), F.T.C.-II, Deoria.

3. On 01.10.2024, a Coordinate Bench of this Court has referred the matter to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court and directed the applicants to deposit an amount of Rs.30,000/- within three weeks at the Mediation Centre. It was also mentioned in the order that no time extension application shall be allowed without any good ground.

4. In compliance of the order dated 01.10.2024, a mediation report is placed on record as is evident from office report dated

01.02.2025. As per the report the applicants have not deposited a sum of Rs.30,000/- as directed by this Court. Therefore, the applicants have flouted the order of this Court. Such conduct of the applicants cannot be appreciated.

5. At the very outset, learned A.G.A. for the State submits that charge-sheet in the present matter has been submitted on

27.09.2023, wherein applicants have been summoned on

19.12.2023. He further submits that there is nothing on record to show that applicants are not avoiding facing trial. He 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 A.G.A. that in the absence of above, the challenge laid to the charge sheet cannot be examined by this Court.

6. On the aforesaid, learned counsel for the applicants further submits that FIR has been lodged with false and frivolous allegations against the husband as well as his entire family members with omnibus, general and vague allegations. He further submits that now a days the provision of Section 498-A IPC is being used as weapon of harassment, because this is the simplest way to harass and get the husband and his other relatives arrested by levelling frivolous allegations against them. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra and another vs State of U.P. and another, 2012 (10) SCC 741. He further submits that due to personal difficulty the applicants could not deposit the money before the mediation centre of this Court. 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.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

8. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court feels that applicants are deliberately avoiding facing trial. The matter has been lingered on unnecessarily which hampers proper functioning of the Court.

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. The fact that the applicants have not deposited the amount as directed by this Court under order dated 01.10.2024 and have enjoyed the stay order also goes to show their conduct of avoiding this court, hence are not entitled for any relief, therefore, no good ground exists to entertain the present application.

14. In view of the aforesaid, the present application is dismissed. Order Date :- 19.2.2025 Abhishek Singh