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

1. Heard Mr. R. K. Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Deepak Kapoor, 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 the cognizance/summoning order dated 11.01.2016 as well as entire proceedings of Case No.66 of 2016 (State of U.P. V.s Nafees), arising out of Case Crime No.392 of 2014, under Sections 420, 498A, 496, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Shahbad, District Rampur, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate- I, Rampur.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. Allegations levelled against the applicant regarding dowry and harassment are false. He further submits that the applicant is the husband of opposite party no.2 and after being released on bail in order to earn his livelihood he left for Mumbai, therefore, he could not appear before the court concerned. He further submits that father of the applicant has already been acquitted by the court concerned by order dated 18.02.2017 and from the statement of the victim as given before the trial court in the case of father-in-law, no offence under the relevant sections has been made out against the applicant. He next submits that after completion of investigation Investigation Officer has submitted charge-sheet against the applicant and learned Magistrate has taken cognizance and summoned the applicants on 11.01.2016. He further submits that due to personal difficulty the applicants could not appear before the Court below after 2016. He also submits submits that some time may be granted to the applicants to surrender/appear before the Court concerned.

4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. for the State submits that after being enlarged on bail, the applicant had not appeared before the court concerned. There is nothing on record to show that applicant has not avoided to face trial. He further submits that statement of the victim given before the trial court cannot be read in the present case to see as to whether the applicant is guilty or not in view of the settled position of law. He next submits that applicant has been summoned in the year 2016, which cannot be challenged at such a later stage. The applicant is absconding from court proceedings since 2016 and is not entitled for any relief by this Court.

5. It is to be seen that in the present case the applicant has been summoned in the year 11.01.2016. 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 summons has been served on the applicant in the year 2016, 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. Perusal of the order-sheet of the trial court filed today goes to show that the applicant is avoiding the court proceedings since 2016.

11. In view of the facts, it is evident that the applicants have no respect for the court proceedings and have remained absent from the court proceedings for a period of about two 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. Order Date :- 27.2.2025 Abhishek Singh

1. Heard Mr. R. K. Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Deepak Kapoor, 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 the cognizance/summoning order dated 11.01.2016 as well as entire proceedings of Case No.66 of 2016 (State of U.P. V.s Nafees), arising out of Case Crime No.392 of 2014, under Sections 420, 498A, 496, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Shahbad, District Rampur, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate- I, Rampur.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. Allegations levelled against the applicant regarding dowry and harassment are false. He further submits that the applicant is the husband of opposite party no.2 and after being released on bail in order to earn his livelihood he left for Mumbai, therefore, he could not appear before the court concerned. He further submits that father of the applicant has already been acquitted by the court concerned by order dated 18.02.2017 and from the statement of the victim as given before the trial court in the case of father-in-law, no offence under the relevant sections has been made out against the applicant. He next submits that after completion of investigation Investigation Officer has submitted charge-sheet against the applicant and learned Magistrate has taken cognizance and summoned the applicants on 11.01.2016. He further submits that due to personal difficulty the applicants could not appear before the Court below after 2016. He also submits submits that some time may be granted to the applicants to surrender/appear before the Court concerned.

4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. for the State submits that after being enlarged on bail, the applicant had not appeared before the court concerned. There is nothing on record to show that applicant has not avoided to face trial. He further submits that statement of the victim given before the trial court cannot be read in the present case to see as to whether the applicant is guilty or not in view of the settled position of law. He next submits that applicant has been summoned in the year 2016, which cannot be challenged at such a later stage. The applicant is absconding from court proceedings since 2016 and is not entitled for any relief by this Court.

5. It is to be seen that in the present case the applicant has been summoned in the year 11.01.2016. 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 summons has been served on the applicant in the year 2016, 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. Perusal of the order-sheet of the trial court filed today goes to show that the applicant is avoiding the court proceedings since 2016.

11. In view of the facts, it is evident that the applicants have no respect for the court proceedings and have remained absent from the court proceedings for a period of about two 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. Order Date :- 27.2.2025 Abhishek Singh