Others v. State of U.P. and Another) was filed challenging the summoning order dated
Case Details
Cited in this judgment
Mr. D.P. Tripathi, Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2 has filed vakalatnama in the Court today, which is taken on record. Learned A.G.A. for the State has filed compliance affidavit in the Court today, which is taken on record. Heard Mr. Ankit Namdev, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Rajneesh Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. D.P. Tripathi, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 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 order dated 12.12.2024 passed in Special Session Trial No.602 of 2023 (State vs. Tejpal Saini and Others), arising out of Case Crime No.1107 of 2022, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 352 I.P.C. and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) & 3(2(va) SC/ST Act, Police Station- Majhola, District- Moradabad, pending in the court of Special Judge (S.C./S.T.) Act, Moradabad. Earlier a Criminal Appeal No.12246 of 2023 Tejpal Saini And 8 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another) was filed challenging the summoning order dated 03.04.2023 and the same was dismissed vide order dated 08.04.2024. Without disclosing the aforesaid, the present Application U/S 528 BNSS has been filed challenging the order dated 12.12.2024 vide which non-bailable warrant has been issued against the applicants. Learned A.G.A. for the State submits that the charge sheet filed against the applicants is of the year 2023. He further submits that the applicants have been summoned in the year of 2023 and they have not placed anything on record to show that after dismissal of the aforesaid appeal, the applicants have not avoided facing trial and appear before the court concerned. It is to be seen that in the present case the applicants have been summoned in the year 2023. However, the applicants have not appeared before the court concerned in pursuance to the aforesaid summoning order. The applicants have failed to substantiate before this Court in view of the reasoning stated hereinabove that due to some personal difficulty, they could not appear before the Court concerned. The proceedings of the court concerned have been held up on account of non appearance of the applicants and as such the applicants are fleeing from the process of law without any reasonable cause. "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 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. In the present case, the summons has been served on the applicants in the year 2023, no reasonable explanation has been offered by the learned counsel for the applicants 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 applicants were not fleeing from process of law or evading justice. In the facts and circumstances, the applicants are 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. It is to be seen that the applicants are avoiding the summons since the year 2023 and till date they have not appeared before the court concerned. In view of the facts, it is evident that the applicants have no respect for the summons of the court and have remained absent from the court proceedings for a period of about 2 years 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 528 BNSS is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 23.4.2025 Kalp Nath Singh
Mr. D.P. Tripathi, Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2 has filed vakalatnama in the Court today, which is taken on record. Learned A.G.A. for the State has filed compliance affidavit in the Court today, which is taken on record. Heard Mr. Ankit Namdev, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Rajneesh Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. D.P. Tripathi, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 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 order dated 12.12.2024 passed in Special Session Trial No.602 of 2023 (State vs. Tejpal Saini and Others), arising out of Case Crime No.1107 of 2022, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 352 I.P.C. and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) & 3(2(va) SC/ST Act, Police Station- Majhola, District- Moradabad, pending in the court of Special Judge (S.C./S.T.) Act, Moradabad. Earlier a Criminal Appeal No.12246 of 2023 Tejpal Saini And 8 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another) was filed challenging the summoning order dated 03.04.2023 and the same was dismissed vide order dated 08.04.2024. Without disclosing the aforesaid, the present Application U/S 528 BNSS has been filed challenging the order dated 12.12.2024 vide which non-bailable warrant has been issued against the applicants. Learned A.G.A. for the State submits that the charge sheet filed against the applicants is of the year 2023. He further submits that the applicants have been summoned in the year of 2023 and they have not placed anything on record to show that after dismissal of the aforesaid appeal, the applicants have not avoided facing trial and appear before the court concerned. It is to be seen that in the present case the applicants have been summoned in the year 2023. However, the applicants have not appeared before the court concerned in pursuance to the aforesaid summoning order. The applicants have failed to substantiate before this Court in view of the reasoning stated hereinabove that due to some personal difficulty, they could not appear before the Court concerned. The proceedings of the court concerned have been held up on account of non appearance of the applicants and as such the applicants are fleeing from the process of law without any reasonable cause. "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 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. In the present case, the summons has been served on the applicants in the year 2023, no reasonable explanation has been offered by the learned counsel for the applicants 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 applicants were not fleeing from process of law or evading justice. In the facts and circumstances, the applicants are 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. It is to be seen that the applicants are avoiding the summons since the year 2023 and till date they have not appeared before the court concerned. In view of the facts, it is evident that the applicants have no respect for the summons of the court and have remained absent from the court proceedings for a period of about 2 years 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 528 BNSS is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 23.4.2025 Kalp Nath Singh