Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:10613 Court No. - 52 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 34583 of 2024 Applicant :- Nitin Chauhan @ Sonu And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pavan Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- Ashok Kumar Singh,G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J. List is revised. None appears for the applicants. Sri Deepak Kapoor, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 are present. The present application has been filed by the applicants challenging quash the cognizance and summoning order dated 20.07.2017 and proceedings of Criminal Case No. 3312 of 2017, State v. Nitin Chauhan alias Sonu and others, arising out of Case Crime No. 80 of 2016, under Sections 498A, 304-B, 201, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Shivala Kala, District Bijnor. Heard learned A.G.A., learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and perused the record. Brief facts of the case are that a first information report was lodged on 07.07.2016 through an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against four persons who are applicants in the present case with the allegation that marriage of O.P. No. 2 was solemnized with applicant no. 1 on 05.02.2015 according to Hindu rites and rituals. O.P. No. 2 had spent money and given gifts as per his capability and capacity. The alleged accused persons were not happy with dowry, therefore, they raised additional dowry demand of Rs. 5 lakh, for which they mentally and physically harassed O.P. No. 2. The O.P. No. 2 managed to give one and half lakh rupees but for remaining three and half lakh rupees, after beating her they pushed daughter of O.P. No. 2 out of house in August, 2015. It has further been alleged that on 29.09.2015, alleged accused persons came to house of O.P. No. 2 at about 04:00 p.m. and finding his daughter alone, and being annoyed by her as she had not requested O.P. No. 2 to give remaining amount of additional dowry i.e. three and half lakh rupees. At that point of time, wife and son of O.P. No. 2 reached there and saved her. She was beaten by the applicants, due to which she sustained injuries on neck and other parts of the body. The applicants apologized for their mistake, therefore, O.P. No. 2 sent his daughter along with them as they assured that they will not pester her any more for raising additional dowry demand. It has further been alleged that on 18.11.2015, daughter of O.P. No. 2 was done to death by the applicants. Wife of O.P. No. 1 had gone to the place of applicants to know about the well being of her daughter and not finding her there asked the applicants about her, on which the applicants stated that they have done her to death for non-fulfillment of dowry demand and pushed the O.P. No. 2 and his wife out of the house, therefore, an application was given requesting for lodging of FIR. After investigation, a charge sheet has been submitted against the applicants under the relevant sections and the applicants have been summoned on 20.07.2017. Learned counsel for the applicants is not present in the revised call. On 23.11.2024, learned counsel for the applicants had requested for two weeks' time to file supplementary affidavit annexing relevant statements. On 17.12.2024 he requested for further time to file supplementary affidavit. After perusing the record, this Court finds that Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 21492 of 2016 was filed by the applicants, which was disposed of by order dated 04.10.2016, wherein prayer for quashing the FIR was refused, however, it was directed that the petitioners shall not be arrested till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel appearing for opposite party no. 2 point out that the applicants have killed daughter of O.P. No. 2 for non-fulfillment of dowry demand which can be verified from the statements of charge-sheet witnesses. From the statement of doctor, annexed as Annexure-9, it is clear that the daughter of O.P. No. 2 suffered a lot due to physical and mental assault caused by the applicants. They further submit that the statements of charge sheet witnesses have not been annexed, therefore, the Court is not in a position to see as to whether charge- sheet has been properly filed or not. In support of the contention, reliance has been placed on the judgement passed by Apex Court in the case of Kaptan Singh vs. State of U.P., (2021) 9 SCC 35. Learned counsel appearing for opposite parties next submit that the chargesheet is of the year 2017 and non-bailable warrants have been issued in 2022, and nothing has been placed on record to show that the applicants have not avoided appearance on the dates fixed before the court concerned. The record reflects that the applicants have deliberately avoided the process of law, therefore, they cannot be entitled to any relief from this Court in exercise of extraordinary powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. They 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. 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. "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, no reasonable explanation has been offered by the learned counsel for the applicants for non-appearance of the applicants before 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. The record appended with the petition in itself demonstrates that the applicants are avoiding the proceedings. In view of the facts, it is evident that the applicants have no respect for the proceedings of the court and have remained absent from the court proceedings since 2016 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 DS Digitally signed by :- DIGAMBER SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad