High Court
Case Details
Cited in this judgment
Heard Mr. Chandra Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Mr. Pramod Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the record. This application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed to quash the impugned Charge Sheet No.120 of 2014 dated 14.06.2014 along with Cognizance/Summoning order dated 14.10.2014 and the entire proceeding of Case No.10875 of 2014 (State vs. Munish Sharma and Others), arising out of Case Crime No.616 of 2013, under Sections 406, 504 & 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Civil Lines, District- Budaun, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Budaun. Brief facts of the case are that an FIR has been lodged by opposite party no.2 with the allegation that the applicant along with two others was given the task of transporting goods as per the permit being in favour of opposite party no.2 which they did not, therefore, the present FIR was lodged. After investigation, charge sheet has been submitted against the three named accused including the applicant. The other two accused who happen to be the uncles of the applicant have already been enlarged on bail. The applicant has been summoned by the order dated 14.10.2014, hence the present application has been filed. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that as the incident is of Budaun and the applicant was residing in Bareilly, therefore, he was not aware of any proceedings against him. The present case has been lodged with false and frivolous allegations due to ulterior motive. He further contends that there is no allegation against the applicant and the allegations are against the factory owner and the driver. He also submits that no summons have been served upon the applicant. He further submits that due to personal difficulty the applicant could not appear before the Court concerned. Several other submissions 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. Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submits that the other co- accused persons have been enlarged on bail and the applicant being relative of them was well aware of the proceedings. He further submits that the charge sheet is of the year 2014 and the applicant has been summoned on 14.10.2014, after which nothing has been placed on record to show that applicant is not avoiding facing trial. The applicant has also failed to substantiate before this Court that as to why 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 the applicant is fleeing from the process of law without any reasonable cause. He also contends that as per the version of the FIR as well as charge sheet witnesses, prima facie offence is made out against the applicant. "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. 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. 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. 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 of 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. In the present case, the summon has been issued against 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 do not deserve any protection in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court.
11. It is to be seen that the applicant is avoiding the summons since the year 2014 and till date have not appeared before the court concerned.
12. In view of the facts, it is evident that the applicant has no respect for the summons of the court and have remained absent from the court proceedings for a period of more than 10 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 528 BNSS is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 22.4.2025/Kalp Nath Singh
Heard Mr. Chandra Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Mr. Pramod Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the record. This application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed to quash the impugned Charge Sheet No.120 of 2014 dated 14.06.2014 along with Cognizance/Summoning order dated 14.10.2014 and the entire proceeding of Case No.10875 of 2014 (State vs. Munish Sharma and Others), arising out of Case Crime No.616 of 2013, under Sections 406, 504 & 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Civil Lines, District- Budaun, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Budaun. Brief facts of the case are that an FIR has been lodged by opposite party no.2 with the allegation that the applicant along with two others was given the task of transporting goods as per the permit being in favour of opposite party no.2 which they did not, therefore, the present FIR was lodged. After investigation, charge sheet has been submitted against the three named accused including the applicant. The other two accused who happen to be the uncles of the applicant have already been enlarged on bail. The applicant has been summoned by the order dated 14.10.2014, hence the present application has been filed. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that as the incident is of Budaun and the applicant was residing in Bareilly, therefore, he was not aware of any proceedings against him. The present case has been lodged with false and frivolous allegations due to ulterior motive. He further contends that there is no allegation against the applicant and the allegations are against the factory owner and the driver. He also submits that no summons have been served upon the applicant. He further submits that due to personal difficulty the applicant could not appear before the Court concerned. Several other submissions 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. Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submits that the other co- accused persons have been enlarged on bail and the applicant being relative of them was well aware of the proceedings. He further submits that the charge sheet is of the year 2014 and the applicant has been summoned on 14.10.2014, after which nothing has been placed on record to show that applicant is not avoiding facing trial. The applicant has also failed to substantiate before this Court that as to why 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 the applicant is fleeing from the process of law without any reasonable cause. He also contends that as per the version of the FIR as well as charge sheet witnesses, prima facie offence is made out against the applicant. "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. 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. 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. 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 of 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. In the present case, the summon has been issued against 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 do not deserve any protection in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court.
11. It is to be seen that the applicant is avoiding the summons since the year 2014 and till date have not appeared before the court concerned.
12. In view of the facts, it is evident that the applicant has no respect for the summons of the court and have remained absent from the court proceedings for a period of more than 10 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 528 BNSS is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 22.4.2025/Kalp Nath Singh