Singh Chauhan, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the v. District Buland Shahar, pending in the court of Additional Civil

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant and Neetu are adults and have performed marriage. Neetu belongs to other religion, therefore after conversion as per law, the marriage has been performed between the two. He further submits that out of the said wedlock the couple are blessed with three children. The applicant did not have prior knowledge about earlier marriage of Neetu with opposite party no.2. He next submits that even if it is presumed that the applicant has performed marriage with a married women, offence under Section 494 I.P.C. is not made out against him. As per Section 494 I.P.C. whoever, having a husband or wife living, marries in any case in which such marriage is void by reason of its taking place during the life of such husband or wife, is an offence punishable under the Act. As the present applicant has married for the first time, therefore, offence under Section 494 is not made out against him.

5. In the present case, the applicant has performed marriage for the first time, therefore, it is Neetu who can be held guilty of the offence under Section 494 I.P.C. He further submits that after performing marriage with Neetu, the applicant had approached this Court by means of filing of Writ- C No.20900 of 2013 and protection was granted to them as they were adults. Several other submission have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant has also been touched upon at length.

6. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. submits that charge-sheet in the present matter has been submitted in the year 2013 and applicant has been summoned on 17.02.2014. There is nothing on record to show that the applicant has appeared before the court concerned and he was avoiding facing trial. The proceedings of the court concerned have been held up on account of non appearance of the applicant and on 09.05.2023 the applicant appeared before the Judicial Magistrate and the court concerned enlarged him on bail vide order dated 09.05.2023. There is no evidence as to why the applicant had not appeared before the court concerned prior to year 2023, and therefore, he had avoided the process of law. He next submits that applicant has been summoned in the year 2014, which cannot be challenged at such a later stage. The applicant has been absconding from court proceedings since 2014 and is not entitled for any relief by this Court.

7. It is to be seen that in the present case the applicant has been summoned on 17.02.2014. 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.

8. "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.

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. In the present case, the summons has been served on the applicant in the year 2014, 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.

13. In view of the facts, it is evident that the applicant has no respect for the court proceedings and has remained absent from the court proceedings for a period of about nine years and in the year 2023 he appeared before the trial court and has been released on bail, which is indicative of the fact that the applicant is fleeing from the process of law.

14. The applicant has been summoned under Section 498A I.P.C. as he has enticed away a married woman and performed marriage with her. There is nothing on record to show that he was not aware of the earlier marriage of his wife. Even otherwise, the aforesaid fact could be looked into during the course of trial as this Court is sitting in jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and cannot look into disputed question of fact by conducting mini trail.

15. As regards the contention of learned counsel for the applicant with respect to order passed in Writ-C No. 20960 of 2013, the protection was granted to the applicant holding that two adults had performed marriage, not legalizing the marriage between the two, therefore, it cannot be said that the offence under Section 498A I.P.C. is not made out.

16. Section 494 IPC says about punishment for second marriage, in case it is void by reason of its taking place during the life of husband or wife. It would be apt to reproduce Section 494 IPC, which reads thus: "494. Marrying again during lifetime of husband or wife.--- Whoever, having a husband or wife living, marries in any case in which such marriage is void by reason of its taking place during the life of such husband or wife, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."

17. The Apex Court in the case of Dhanlakshmi v. R. Prasanna Kumar and others, 1990 (Supp) SCC 686, wherein offence under Sections 494, 496, 498-A, 112, 120-B IPC was involved, has held that exercise of powers to quash the proceedings is called for only in cases where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous. The Court has further held that in the absence of circumstances to hold prima facie that the complaint is frivolous when the complaint does disclose the commission of an offence there is no justification for the High Court to interfere with. Relevant paragraphs of the said judgement reads thus: "3. Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the High Court to exercise its inherent powers to prevent abuse of the process of court. In proceedings instituted on complaint exercise of the inherent power to quash the proceedings is called for only in cases where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance is taken by the Magistrate it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482. It is not, however, necessary that there should be a meticulous analysis of the case, before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or not. The complaint has to be read as a whole. If it appears on a consideration of the allegations, in the light of the statement on oath of the complainant that ingredients of the offence/offences are disclosed, and there is no material to show that the complaint is mala fide frivolous or vexatious, in that event there would be no justification for interference by the High Court.

18. The High Court without proper application of the principles that have been laid down by this Court in Sharda Prasad Sinha v. State of Bihar (1977) 1 SCC 505, S. Trilok Singh v. Satya Deo Tripathi (1979) 4 SCC 396 and Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Purshotam Dass Jhunjunwala (1983) 1 SCC 9 proceeded to analyse the case of the complainant in the light of all the probabilities in order to determine whether a conviction would be sustainable and on such premises arrived at a conclusion that the proceedings are to be quashed against all the respondents. The High Court was clearly in error in assessing the material before it and concluding that the complaint cannot be proceeded with. We find there are specific allegations in the complaint disclosing the ingredients of the offence taken cognizance of. It is for the complainant to substantiate the allegations by evidence at a later stage. In the absence of circumstances to hold prima facie that the complaint is frivolous when the complaint does disclose the commission of an offence there is no justification for the High Court to interfere." (emphasis supplied)

19. This Court finds that the submissions made by the applicants' learned counsel call for adjudication on pure questions of fact which may adequately be adjudicated upon only by the trial court and while doing so even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court in this case. The issue whether it is appropriate for this Court being the highest Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the charge-sheet and the proceedings at the stage when the Magistrate has merely issued process against the applicants and trial is yet to come only on the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicants that present criminal case initiated by opposite party no.2 are not only malicious but also abuse of process of law has elaborately been discussed by the Apex Court in the following judgments: (i) R.P. Kapur Versus State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866; (ii) State of Haryana & Ors. Versus Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors.1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335; (iii) State of Bihar & Anr. Versus P.P. Sharma & Anr. 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 222; (iv) Zandu Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd. & Ors. Versus Mohammad Shariful Haque & Anr. 2005 (1) SCC 122; (v) M. N. Ojha Vs. Alok Kumar Srivastava 2009 (9) SCC 682; (vi) Mohd. Allauddin Khan Vs. The State of Bihar & Others (2019 ) Supreme (SC) 454; (vii) Nallapareddy Sridhar Reddy Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (2020) Supreme (SC) 45; (viii) Rajeev Kaurav Vs. Balasahab & Others (2020 ) Supreme (SC) 143, and (ix) M/s Neeharika, Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. The State of Maharashtra (2021) SCC OnLine SC 315.

20. In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not deem it proper, and therefore cannot be persuaded to have a pre-trial before the actual trial begins. A threadbare discussion of various facts and circumstances, as they emerge from the allegations made against the accused, is being purposely avoided by the Court for the reason, lest the same might cause any prejudice to either side during trial. But it shall suffice to observe that the perusal of the F.I.R. and the material collected by the Investigating Officer on the basis of which the charge sheet has been submitted makes out a prima facie case against the accused at this stage and there appear to be sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. I do not find any justification to quash the charge sheet or the proceedings against the applicants arising out of them as the case does not fall in any of the categories recognized by the Apex Court which may justify their quashing.

21. The prayer for quashing the impugned charge-sheet as well as cognizance order and the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case are refused, as I do not see any abuse of the court's process at this pre-trial stage.

22. The present application has no merit and is, accordingly, rejected. Order Date :- 24.2.2025 Abhishek Singh

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant and Neetu are adults and have performed marriage. Neetu belongs to other religion, therefore after conversion as per law, the marriage has been performed between the two. He further submits that out of the said wedlock the couple are blessed with three children. The applicant did not have prior knowledge about earlier marriage of Neetu with opposite party no.2. He next submits that even if it is presumed that the applicant has performed marriage with a married women, offence under Section 494 I.P.C. is not made out against him. As per Section 494 I.P.C. whoever, having a husband or wife living, marries in any case in which such marriage is void by reason of its taking place during the life of such husband or wife, is an offence punishable under the Act. As the present applicant has married for the first time, therefore, offence under Section 494 is not made out against him.

5. In the present case, the applicant has performed marriage for the first time, therefore, it is Neetu who can be held guilty of the offence under Section 494 I.P.C. He further submits that after performing marriage with Neetu, the applicant had approached this Court by means of filing of Writ- C No.20900 of 2013 and protection was granted to them as they were adults. Several other submission have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant has also been touched upon at length.

6. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. submits that charge-sheet in the present matter has been submitted in the year 2013 and applicant has been summoned on 17.02.2014. There is nothing on record to show that the applicant has appeared before the court concerned and he was avoiding facing trial. The proceedings of the court concerned have been held up on account of non appearance of the applicant and on 09.05.2023 the applicant appeared before the Judicial Magistrate and the court concerned enlarged him on bail vide order dated 09.05.2023. There is no evidence as to why the applicant had not appeared before the court concerned prior to year 2023, and therefore, he had avoided the process of law. He next submits that applicant has been summoned in the year 2014, which cannot be challenged at such a later stage. The applicant has been absconding from court proceedings since 2014 and is not entitled for any relief by this Court.

7. It is to be seen that in the present case the applicant has been summoned on 17.02.2014. 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.

8. "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.

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. In the present case, the summons has been served on the applicant in the year 2014, 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.

13. In view of the facts, it is evident that the applicant has no respect for the court proceedings and has remained absent from the court proceedings for a period of about nine years and in the year 2023 he appeared before the trial court and has been released on bail, which is indicative of the fact that the applicant is fleeing from the process of law.

14. The applicant has been summoned under Section 498A I.P.C. as he has enticed away a married woman and performed marriage with her. There is nothing on record to show that he was not aware of the earlier marriage of his wife. Even otherwise, the aforesaid fact could be looked into during the course of trial as this Court is sitting in jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and cannot look into disputed question of fact by conducting mini trail.

15. As regards the contention of learned counsel for the applicant with respect to order passed in Writ-C No. 20960 of 2013, the protection was granted to the applicant holding that two adults had performed marriage, not legalizing the marriage between the two, therefore, it cannot be said that the offence under Section 498A I.P.C. is not made out.

16. Section 494 IPC says about punishment for second marriage, in case it is void by reason of its taking place during the life of husband or wife. It would be apt to reproduce Section 494 IPC, which reads thus: "494. Marrying again during lifetime of husband or wife.--- Whoever, having a husband or wife living, marries in any case in which such marriage is void by reason of its taking place during the life of such husband or wife, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."

17. The Apex Court in the case of Dhanlakshmi v. R. Prasanna Kumar and others, 1990 (Supp) SCC 686, wherein offence under Sections 494, 496, 498-A, 112, 120-B IPC was involved, has held that exercise of powers to quash the proceedings is called for only in cases where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous. The Court has further held that in the absence of circumstances to hold prima facie that the complaint is frivolous when the complaint does disclose the commission of an offence there is no justification for the High Court to interfere with. Relevant paragraphs of the said judgement reads thus: "3. Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the High Court to exercise its inherent powers to prevent abuse of the process of court. In proceedings instituted on complaint exercise of the inherent power to quash the proceedings is called for only in cases where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance is taken by the Magistrate it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482. It is not, however, necessary that there should be a meticulous analysis of the case, before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or not. The complaint has to be read as a whole. If it appears on a consideration of the allegations, in the light of the statement on oath of the complainant that ingredients of the offence/offences are disclosed, and there is no material to show that the complaint is mala fide frivolous or vexatious, in that event there would be no justification for interference by the High Court.

18. The High Court without proper application of the principles that have been laid down by this Court in Sharda Prasad Sinha v. State of Bihar (1977) 1 SCC 505, S. Trilok Singh v. Satya Deo Tripathi (1979) 4 SCC 396 and Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Purshotam Dass Jhunjunwala (1983) 1 SCC 9 proceeded to analyse the case of the complainant in the light of all the probabilities in order to determine whether a conviction would be sustainable and on such premises arrived at a conclusion that the proceedings are to be quashed against all the respondents. The High Court was clearly in error in assessing the material before it and concluding that the complaint cannot be proceeded with. We find there are specific allegations in the complaint disclosing the ingredients of the offence taken cognizance of. It is for the complainant to substantiate the allegations by evidence at a later stage. In the absence of circumstances to hold prima facie that the complaint is frivolous when the complaint does disclose the commission of an offence there is no justification for the High Court to interfere." (emphasis supplied)

19. This Court finds that the submissions made by the applicants' learned counsel call for adjudication on pure questions of fact which may adequately be adjudicated upon only by the trial court and while doing so even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court in this case. The issue whether it is appropriate for this Court being the highest Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the charge-sheet and the proceedings at the stage when the Magistrate has merely issued process against the applicants and trial is yet to come only on the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicants that present criminal case initiated by opposite party no.2 are not only malicious but also abuse of process of law has elaborately been discussed by the Apex Court in the following judgments: (i) R.P. Kapur Versus State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866; (ii) State of Haryana & Ors. Versus Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors.1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335; (iii) State of Bihar & Anr. Versus P.P. Sharma & Anr. 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 222; (iv) Zandu Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd. & Ors. Versus Mohammad Shariful Haque & Anr. 2005 (1) SCC 122; (v) M. N. Ojha Vs. Alok Kumar Srivastava 2009 (9) SCC 682; (vi) Mohd. Allauddin Khan Vs. The State of Bihar & Others (2019 ) Supreme (SC) 454; (vii) Nallapareddy Sridhar Reddy Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (2020) Supreme (SC) 45; (viii) Rajeev Kaurav Vs. Balasahab & Others (2020 ) Supreme (SC) 143, and (ix) M/s Neeharika, Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. The State of Maharashtra (2021) SCC OnLine SC 315.

20. In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not deem it proper, and therefore cannot be persuaded to have a pre-trial before the actual trial begins. A threadbare discussion of various facts and circumstances, as they emerge from the allegations made against the accused, is being purposely avoided by the Court for the reason, lest the same might cause any prejudice to either side during trial. But it shall suffice to observe that the perusal of the F.I.R. and the material collected by the Investigating Officer on the basis of which the charge sheet has been submitted makes out a prima facie case against the accused at this stage and there appear to be sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. I do not find any justification to quash the charge sheet or the proceedings against the applicants arising out of them as the case does not fall in any of the categories recognized by the Apex Court which may justify their quashing.

21. The prayer for quashing the impugned charge-sheet as well as cognizance order and the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case are refused, as I do not see any abuse of the court's process at this pre-trial stage.

22. The present application has no merit and is, accordingly, rejected. Order Date :- 24.2.2025 Abhishek Singh