Investigation vs Arvind Khanna

2. Heard Mr. Rizwan Ahmad, learned counsel for the State as well as perused the entire material available on record.

3. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 02.05.2020 and cognizance dated 30.01.2021 as well as the entire proceedings of Case No.32 of 2021 (State vs. Satendra and others), arsing out of Case Crime No.446 of 2019, U/s 379 IPC, P.S.-Tilhar, District-Shahjahanpur, pending before the court concerned.

4. In the affidavit accompanying the present application, it has been stated on behalf of the applicant that an FIR was lodged on 06.07.2019 at about 11:19 hrs by the informant against unknown person, under Section 379 IPC with the allegation that a cold storage of opposite party no.2, namely, Updesh Kumar was under construction. Like always, son of opposite party no.2, namely, Sumit Kumar reached there and saw that the motor in the boring value of Rs.7,500/- was stolen. Earlier also, iron, generator and other items were stolen from the campus. During the investigation, the police arrested two persons, namely, Satendra s/o Munnu Singh and Sukhvinder s/o Mullu Singh and recovered some articles, which was stolen as mentioned in the FIR. They also confessed about two other cases relating to Case Crime No.351 of 2019, under Section 379, 411 IPC and Case Crime No.516 of 2019, under Section 379, 411 IPC. The names of Suleman Kabadi (applicant herein), Virendra Singh and Guddu @ Saddam Husain were disclosed by other co-accused persons. An application U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved by the co-accused; Virendra against Sukhvinder and his family members, which was treated as complaint case. Several other grounds have been taken in the application that the charge sheet has not been submitted in a proper manner as the applicant is not involved in the present case. The applicant is not named in the F.I.R. It is the case only on the basis of statements of co-accused in which the name of applicant has surfaced. Other documents and statements have been filed in support thereof. A prayer has been made that the charge-sheet, summoning order as well as entire proceedings be quashed by this Court as the same is an abuse process of Court.

5. Learned A.G.A. for the State submits that from the recovery memo, it is clear that the stolen articles were recovered from the house of one Virendra on his own pointing out. The other co- accused persons are involved in purchasing and selling the stolen articles, therefore, there is no illegality in the charge sheet and cognizance order. Even otherwise, the charge sheet in the case of Suleman Kabadi and Guddu @ Saddam Hussain is submitted on 02.05.2020 and that in the case of Virendra Singh on 27.11.2019. He further submits that there is nothing on record to show that the applicant has appeared before the court concerned to face trial. He further submits that all the contentions made in the affidavit in support of this application relate to disputed questions of fact. On the basis of material on record after conducting of statutory investigation under Chapter XII Cr.P.C. by the investigating officer, a strong prima facie case is made out against the applicant for the commission of the alleged incident. In support of his case, learned AGA has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Dilbag Rai Vs. State of Haryana & Others reported in AIR 2019 (SC) 693 and Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. MANU/SC/1432/2019. Arvind Khanna reported

6. Learned AGA for the State further submits that the charge sheet has been submitted on 02.05.2020 and nothing has been placed to prove that the applicant is not avoiding facing trial as such the applicant is fleeing from the process of law without any reasonable cause.

7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned AGA for the State and have gone through the records of the present application.

8. This Court finds that the submissions made in the affidavit accompanying this application 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 to yet to come only on the submission made in the affidavit accompanying this application 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 0 Supreme (SC) 454, (vii) Nallapareddy Sridhar Reddy Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.; 2020 0 Supreme (SC) 45, and lastly (viii) Rajeev Kaurav Vs. Balasahab & Others; 2020 0 Supreme (SC) 143.

9. "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."

10. 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.

11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vipan Kumar Dhir vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2021) 15 SCC 518 has observed that while granting relief, 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.

12. 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.

14. 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 applicant 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.

15. The prayer for quashing the impugned charge-sheet dated 02.05.2020 and cognizance/summoning order dated 30.01.2021 as well as 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.

16. The present application has no merit and is, accordingly, rejected. Order Date :- 17.4.2025 Jitendra/- JITENDRA KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad