Arvind v. Gujrati), under Sections

1. Heard Ms. Neetu Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Akhilesh Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. This application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the applicants to quash the N.B.W. dated 15.11.2024 in complaint case no. 695 of 2011 (Arvind Vs. Gujrati), under Sections 494, 109, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Badlapur, District Jaunpur, pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) II, Jaunpur.

3. At the very outset, learned A.G.A. submits that complaint filed against the applicants is of the year 2011, wherein the applicants have been summoned vide order dated 05.08.2011, under Sections 494, 109, 504, 506 I.P.C., after which applicants were enlarged on bail. He further submits that when the applicant did not appear before the court concerned on several occasions, non bailable warrants were issued against them in the year 2017. He further submits that subsequently, on non appearance of the applicants before the court concerned again non-bailable warrants have been issued against them year the year 2023. He next submits that there is nothing on record to show that the applicants are not avoiding facing trial.

4. It is to be seen that in the present case the applicants have been summoned in the year 2011. The applicants have failed to substantiate before this Court in view of the reasoning stated hereinabove that due to personal difficulty they could not appear before the Court concerned and N.B.W. have been issued against them in the year 2017. After the aforesaid, the applicants appeared before the court below and released on bail. Subsequently, N.B.W. have been issued against them in the year 2024. 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.

5. "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.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. In the present case, the summons has been served on the applicants in the year 2011, 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/N.B.W. 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. Perusal of the order-sheet of the trial court goes to show that the applicants are avoiding the court proceedings since 2011.

10. 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 fourteen 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 :- 20.3.2025 Abhishek Singh ABHISHEK SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Ms. Neetu Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Akhilesh Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. This application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the applicants to quash the N.B.W. dated 15.11.2024 in complaint case no. 695 of 2011 (Arvind Vs. Gujrati), under Sections 494, 109, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Badlapur, District Jaunpur, pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) II, Jaunpur.

3. At the very outset, learned A.G.A. submits that complaint filed against the applicants is of the year 2011, wherein the applicants have been summoned vide order dated 05.08.2011, under Sections 494, 109, 504, 506 I.P.C., after which applicants were enlarged on bail. He further submits that when the applicant did not appear before the court concerned on several occasions, non bailable warrants were issued against them in the year 2017. He further submits that subsequently, on non appearance of the applicants before the court concerned again non-bailable warrants have been issued against them year the year 2023. He next submits that there is nothing on record to show that the applicants are not avoiding facing trial.

4. It is to be seen that in the present case the applicants have been summoned in the year 2011. The applicants have failed to substantiate before this Court in view of the reasoning stated hereinabove that due to personal difficulty they could not appear before the Court concerned and N.B.W. have been issued against them in the year 2017. After the aforesaid, the applicants appeared before the court below and released on bail. Subsequently, N.B.W. have been issued against them in the year 2024. 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.

5. "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.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. In the present case, the summons has been served on the applicants in the year 2011, 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/N.B.W. 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. Perusal of the order-sheet of the trial court goes to show that the applicants are avoiding the court proceedings since 2011.

10. 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 fourteen 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 :- 20.3.2025 Abhishek Singh ABHISHEK SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad