The supreme court in Vipan Kumar Dhir v. State of Pun

Applicant :- Smt Annapurna Srivastava And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Akshara Rai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for applicants as well as learned A.G.A. for State and perused the record and perused the record.

2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 2006 and the order dated 17.10.2006 by which cognizance has been taken along with order dated 04.06.2010 by which the applicants have been summoned and the order dated 24.09.2024 by which non-bailable warrant as well as order under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued by the court concerned in Case No.6402 of 2006 (State vs. Raj Kumar Srivastava and others), arising out of Case Crime No.188 of 2006, under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Colonelganj, Allahabad, pending in the court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad.

3. At the very outset, learned A.G.A. for the State submits that the charge sheet filed against the applicants is of the year 2006. He further submits that the applicants have been summoned in the year of 2010 and they have not placed anything on record to show that they have appeared before the court concerned. Non-bailable warrants have also been issued against the applicants.

4. As stated by learned counsel for the applicants, the husband died in the year 2020 and the father-in-law died in the year 2017. They also have not appeared before the court concerned as is admitted by learned counsel for the applicants.

5. It is to be seen that in the present case the applicants have been summoned in the year 2010. However, the applicants have not appeared before the court concerned in pursuance to the aforesaid summoning order. The applicants have failed to substantiate before this Court in view of the reasoning stated hereinabove that due to some personal difficulty, 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 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 Court. 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 applicants in the year 2010, no reasonable explanation has been offered by the learned counsel for the applicants for non- appearance of the applicants 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 applicants were not fleeing from process of law or evading justice. In the facts and circumstances, the applicants are fleeing from the process of law and evading justice, as such do not deserve any protection in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court.

11. It is to be seen that the applicants are avoiding the summons since the year 2010 and till date have not appeared before the court concerned.

12. In view of the facts, it is evident that the applicants have no respect for the summons of the court and have remained absent from the court proceedings for a period of about 14 years which is indicative of the fact that the applicants are fleeing from the process of law. Therefore, prayer in respect of applicants is refused and the application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 16.1.2025 Kalp Nath Singh

Applicant :- Smt Annapurna Srivastava And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Akshara Rai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for applicants as well as learned A.G.A. for State and perused the record and perused the record.

2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 2006 and the order dated 17.10.2006 by which cognizance has been taken along with order dated 04.06.2010 by which the applicants have been summoned and the order dated 24.09.2024 by which non-bailable warrant as well as order under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued by the court concerned in Case No.6402 of 2006 (State vs. Raj Kumar Srivastava and others), arising out of Case Crime No.188 of 2006, under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Colonelganj, Allahabad, pending in the court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad.

3. At the very outset, learned A.G.A. for the State submits that the charge sheet filed against the applicants is of the year 2006. He further submits that the applicants have been summoned in the year of 2010 and they have not placed anything on record to show that they have appeared before the court concerned. Non-bailable warrants have also been issued against the applicants.

4. As stated by learned counsel for the applicants, the husband died in the year 2020 and the father-in-law died in the year 2017. They also have not appeared before the court concerned as is admitted by learned counsel for the applicants.

5. It is to be seen that in the present case the applicants have been summoned in the year 2010. However, the applicants have not appeared before the court concerned in pursuance to the aforesaid summoning order. The applicants have failed to substantiate before this Court in view of the reasoning stated hereinabove that due to some personal difficulty, 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 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 Court. 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 applicants in the year 2010, no reasonable explanation has been offered by the learned counsel for the applicants for non- appearance of the applicants 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 applicants were not fleeing from process of law or evading justice. In the facts and circumstances, the applicants are fleeing from the process of law and evading justice, as such do not deserve any protection in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court.

11. It is to be seen that the applicants are avoiding the summons since the year 2010 and till date have not appeared before the court concerned.

12. In view of the facts, it is evident that the applicants have no respect for the summons of the court and have remained absent from the court proceedings for a period of about 14 years which is indicative of the fact that the applicants are fleeing from the process of law. Therefore, prayer in respect of applicants is refused and the application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 16.1.2025 Kalp Nath Singh