High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:195434 Court No. - 52 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 41648 of 2024 Applicant :- Dharm Prakash Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Ojha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Heard Mr. Sanjay Ojha, learned counsel for applicant and Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, learned A.G.A. for State. 2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the non-bailable warrant dated 14.10.2024 as well as entire proceedings of Case No. 619 of 2018 (State Vs. Dharm Prakash and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 256 of 2017, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Nakhasa, District Sambhal, pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)/ Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Sambhal. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Allegations levelled against the applicant regarding dowry and harassment are false. He further submits that charge sheet has been submitted on 13.06.2017 and learned Magistrate has taken cognizance on 21.03.2018. He further submits that due to personal difficulty the applicant could not appear before the Court below, therefore, non bailable warrants have been issued against him on 14.10.2024. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that some time may be granted to the applicants to surrender/appear before the Court concerned. 4. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer by contending that F.I.R. has been lodged on 08.05.2017 under Sections 498-A, 452, 323, 504, 506, 147, 148, 354A I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. The applicant is the husband of opposite party no.2. Due to non- appearance before the trial Court order to issue N.B.W. was passed on 14.10.2024 against him. It cannot be said that said order has been passed illegally. 5. It is to be seen that in the present case the charge-sheet has been filed in the year 2017 and applicant has been summoned in the year 2018. The applicant 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 and as such he 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 F.I.R. is of the year 2017, no reasonable explanation has been offered by the learned counsel for the applicant for non-appearance of the applicant before the court concerned in pursuance to summons/warrant issued by the court concerned. Learned counsel for the applicant 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 2018. The applicant is not appearing before the trial court to face trial, therefore, N.B.W. have been issued against him. 12. In view of the facts, it is evident that the applicant has no respect for the proceedings of the court and have remained absent from the court proceedings for a period of about 6 years which is indicative of the fact that the applicant is fleeing from the process of law. Therefore, prayer in respect of applicant 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 applications of the applicant be considered and decided as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law. Order Date :- 11.12.2024 Abhishek Singh