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

1. Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar Pal, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant to quash charge-sheet dated 01.07.2021 and cognizance order dated 01.11.2021 as well as entire proceedings of the Case No. 25926 of 2021 (State Vs. Bhupreet Singh and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 0145 of 2021, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 354(क) I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Mathura, pending in the court of Civil Judge (J.D.), Fast Track Court (Crime against Women) Judicial Magistrate, Mathura.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that earlier applicant was granted interim bail by order dated 18.03.2024 and was expected to appear before the court concerned for the purpose of mediation. He further submits that as applicant left India, therefore, he could not appear on the next date fixed for the purpose of mediation. He request that in case the applicant moved an application for bail, the same may be decided in accordance with law.

4. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer by contending that F.I.R. is of the year 2021, registered under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 354(क) I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act. The applicant is the husband of opposite party no.2 against whom there are specific allegations of harassing the opposite party no.2.

5. It is to be seen that in the present case charge-sheet has been filed on 01.07.2021 and the applicant was summoned vide order dated 01.11.2021. Thereafter the applicant was released on interim bail vide order dated 18.03.2024 and was supposed to appear for the purpose of mediation before the Mediation Centre at District Court. The very purpose of granting interim bail was conditional in order to make it convenient that the applicant to appear before the Mediation Centre at District Court/ court concerned for the purpose of mediation. He has not appeared on the next date and violated the terms and conditions as required while granting interim bail which means that he is absconding and avoiding facing trial. The proceedings of the court concerned have been held up on account of non appearance of the applicants and as such they 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 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 F.I.R. is of the year 2021, no reasonable explanation has been offered by the learned counsel for the applicant 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 applicant was not fleeing from process of law or evading justice. In the facts and circumstances the applicant 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. The record appended with the petition in itself demonstrates that the applicant is avoiding the proceedings and has not appeared before the court concerned since March, 2024.

12. In view of the facts, it is evident that the applicants have no respect for the proceedings of the court and have remained absent from the court proceedings for a period of about ten months 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.

13. However, it is provided that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below and applies for bail, then the bail application of the applicant be considered and decided as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law. The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment. Order Date :- 7.1.2025 Abhishek Singh

1. Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar Pal, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant to quash charge-sheet dated 01.07.2021 and cognizance order dated 01.11.2021 as well as entire proceedings of the Case No. 25926 of 2021 (State Vs. Bhupreet Singh and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 0145 of 2021, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 354(क) I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Mathura, pending in the court of Civil Judge (J.D.), Fast Track Court (Crime against Women) Judicial Magistrate, Mathura.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that earlier applicant was granted interim bail by order dated 18.03.2024 and was expected to appear before the court concerned for the purpose of mediation. He further submits that as applicant left India, therefore, he could not appear on the next date fixed for the purpose of mediation. He request that in case the applicant moved an application for bail, the same may be decided in accordance with law.

4. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer by contending that F.I.R. is of the year 2021, registered under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 354(क) I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act. The applicant is the husband of opposite party no.2 against whom there are specific allegations of harassing the opposite party no.2.

5. It is to be seen that in the present case charge-sheet has been filed on 01.07.2021 and the applicant was summoned vide order dated 01.11.2021. Thereafter the applicant was released on interim bail vide order dated 18.03.2024 and was supposed to appear for the purpose of mediation before the Mediation Centre at District Court. The very purpose of granting interim bail was conditional in order to make it convenient that the applicant to appear before the Mediation Centre at District Court/ court concerned for the purpose of mediation. He has not appeared on the next date and violated the terms and conditions as required while granting interim bail which means that he is absconding and avoiding facing trial. The proceedings of the court concerned have been held up on account of non appearance of the applicants and as such they 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 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 F.I.R. is of the year 2021, no reasonable explanation has been offered by the learned counsel for the applicant 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 applicant was not fleeing from process of law or evading justice. In the facts and circumstances the applicant 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. The record appended with the petition in itself demonstrates that the applicant is avoiding the proceedings and has not appeared before the court concerned since March, 2024.

12. In view of the facts, it is evident that the applicants have no respect for the proceedings of the court and have remained absent from the court proceedings for a period of about ten months 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.

13. However, it is provided that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below and applies for bail, then the bail application of the applicant be considered and decided as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law. The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment. Order Date :- 7.1.2025 Abhishek Singh