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

1. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.

2. Learned counsel for the applicants requests for further time to appear before the court concerned for verification of the compromise deed.

3. On 13.09.2024, the following order was passed in the matter:- "1. Vakalatnama filed by Sri Dileep Kumar Singh, Advocate, on behalf of informant/opposite party no.2 today, is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for applicants, Sri Dileep Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the informant/opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State. including charge-sheet

3. This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the entire dated 06.11.2015 and proceedings, cognizance/summoning order dated 28.01.2016, of case no. 246 of 2016 (State vs. Manish Dubey and others), arising out of case crime no. 1187 of 2015, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 420 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station - Kotwali Orai, District - Jalaun, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun at Orai, in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that on account of intervention of the well-wishers, a compromise has been arrived at between the parties and the said compromise will be filed before the trial court concerned within two weeks from today. It is further contended that proceedings of the aforesaid case may be quashed on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.

5. Whether a compromise has taken place or not can best be ascertained by the court where the proceedings are pending, after ensuring the presence of the parties before it.

6. In view of the aforesaid, it is directed that in case the parties appear before the trial court and file an appropriate application for compromise within a period of two weeks from today, the same shall be verified by the court concerned in accordance with law and if the said compromise is verified, the same shall be made part of the record and report to that effect will be prepared and the parties would be allowed to obtain certified copy thereof and file the same before this Court by the next date. In case such a compromise is verified, the trial court concerned shall send the report of verification to this Court.

7. Put up this case on 18.10.2024, as fresh."

4. As per the office report dated 10.01.2025, the compromise verification report is still awaited.

5. Learned A.G.A. pointed out that both the parties have settled their matrimonial dispute amicably and they do not wish to proceed any further against each other. With their mutual consent both the parties had filed mutual divorce under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act on 14.2.2023 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Jalaun. Copy of compromise deed is annexed as Annexure No.4 to the application.

6. From the aforesaid, it is clear that the earlier order dated 13.09.2024 has been obtained by misleading the Court and from the perusal of the report sent by incharge Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun at Orai, it reflects that despite notice both the parties have not appeared before the court concerned on 11.09.2024 to verify their compromise deed and due to the aforesaid reason the alleged compromise could not be verified.

7. In view of the aforesaid, it seems that the earlier order dated 13.09.2024 has been obtained by misleading the Court. As the applicants have not approached this Court with clean hand and filed this application suppressing the material facts in sheer disoedience of the orders of Supreme Court as well as this Court. Therefore, they do not deserve any indulgence by this Court.

8. The courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One, who comes to the court, must come with clean hands and no material facts should be concealed. I am constrained to hold that more often the process of the court is being abused by unscrupulous litigants to achieve their nefarious design. I have no hesitation in saying that a person, whose case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the court. He/she can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation. The judicial process cannot become an instrument of oppression or abuse or a means in the process of the Court to subvert justice, for the reason that the Court exercises its jurisdiction, only in furtherance of justice.

9. From perusal of the records, it is apparent that the charge-sheet in the matter has been submitted in the year 2015 and the applicants have been summoned on 28.01.2016. There is nothing on record to show that the applicants have appeared before the court concerned and they are avoiding facing trial. The proceedings of the court concerned have been held up on account of non appearance of the applicants and as such they are fleeing from the process of law without any reasonable cause.

10. "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.

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. 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 the present case, the summons has been served on the applicants in the year 2016, 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 court proceedings since 2016.

15. 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 9 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 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 22.1.2025 Abhishek Singh ABHISHEK SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.

2. Learned counsel for the applicants requests for further time to appear before the court concerned for verification of the compromise deed.

3. On 13.09.2024, the following order was passed in the matter:- "1. Vakalatnama filed by Sri Dileep Kumar Singh, Advocate, on behalf of informant/opposite party no.2 today, is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for applicants, Sri Dileep Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the informant/opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State. including charge-sheet

3. This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the entire dated 06.11.2015 and proceedings, cognizance/summoning order dated 28.01.2016, of case no. 246 of 2016 (State vs. Manish Dubey and others), arising out of case crime no. 1187 of 2015, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 420 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station - Kotwali Orai, District - Jalaun, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun at Orai, in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that on account of intervention of the well-wishers, a compromise has been arrived at between the parties and the said compromise will be filed before the trial court concerned within two weeks from today. It is further contended that proceedings of the aforesaid case may be quashed on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.

5. Whether a compromise has taken place or not can best be ascertained by the court where the proceedings are pending, after ensuring the presence of the parties before it.

6. In view of the aforesaid, it is directed that in case the parties appear before the trial court and file an appropriate application for compromise within a period of two weeks from today, the same shall be verified by the court concerned in accordance with law and if the said compromise is verified, the same shall be made part of the record and report to that effect will be prepared and the parties would be allowed to obtain certified copy thereof and file the same before this Court by the next date. In case such a compromise is verified, the trial court concerned shall send the report of verification to this Court.

7. Put up this case on 18.10.2024, as fresh."

4. As per the office report dated 10.01.2025, the compromise verification report is still awaited.

5. Learned A.G.A. pointed out that both the parties have settled their matrimonial dispute amicably and they do not wish to proceed any further against each other. With their mutual consent both the parties had filed mutual divorce under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act on 14.2.2023 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Jalaun. Copy of compromise deed is annexed as Annexure No.4 to the application.

6. From the aforesaid, it is clear that the earlier order dated 13.09.2024 has been obtained by misleading the Court and from the perusal of the report sent by incharge Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun at Orai, it reflects that despite notice both the parties have not appeared before the court concerned on 11.09.2024 to verify their compromise deed and due to the aforesaid reason the alleged compromise could not be verified.

7. In view of the aforesaid, it seems that the earlier order dated 13.09.2024 has been obtained by misleading the Court. As the applicants have not approached this Court with clean hand and filed this application suppressing the material facts in sheer disoedience of the orders of Supreme Court as well as this Court. Therefore, they do not deserve any indulgence by this Court.

8. The courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One, who comes to the court, must come with clean hands and no material facts should be concealed. I am constrained to hold that more often the process of the court is being abused by unscrupulous litigants to achieve their nefarious design. I have no hesitation in saying that a person, whose case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the court. He/she can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation. The judicial process cannot become an instrument of oppression or abuse or a means in the process of the Court to subvert justice, for the reason that the Court exercises its jurisdiction, only in furtherance of justice.

9. From perusal of the records, it is apparent that the charge-sheet in the matter has been submitted in the year 2015 and the applicants have been summoned on 28.01.2016. There is nothing on record to show that the applicants have appeared before the court concerned and they are avoiding facing trial. The proceedings of the court concerned have been held up on account of non appearance of the applicants and as such they are fleeing from the process of law without any reasonable cause.

10. "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.

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. 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 the present case, the summons has been served on the applicants in the year 2016, 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 court proceedings since 2016.

15. 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 9 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 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 22.1.2025 Abhishek Singh ABHISHEK SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad