Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:18280 Court No. - 52 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 30552 of 2024 Applicant :- Sonu And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rohit Nandan Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Samar Singh Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J. 1. List revised. No one appears on behalf of the applicants. However, Mr. Dilip Kumar Vishwakarma, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Samar Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and Mr. Pramod Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State are present. Perused the record. 2. Heard Mr. Samar Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as Mr. Mayank Awasthi, learned Brief Holder for the State and perused the record. 3. This application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the applicants to quash the quash the charge-sheet dated 22.07.2023, summoning order dated 20.09.2023 as well as entire proceedings of Case No.52858 of 2023, arising out of Case Crime No.342 of 2023, under Sections 498A, 323, 506, 504 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar, pending in the court of ACJM-2, Gautam Budh Nagar, pending in the Court of ACJM-2, Gautam Budh Nagar. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State submit that charge-sheet in the matter has been submitted on 22.07.2023 and applicants have been summoned on 20.09.2023. 5. Brief facts of the case are that an F.I.R. has been lodged on 25.06.2023 against four persons including the applicants with the allegations that marriage of the informant was solemnized with applicant no.1 in the year 2016. After which she was residing at her in-laws place alongwith her husband Sonu, Surendra, Karmveer and mother-in-law namely Smt. Ramo. In her marriage her parents had given dowry as per their capability and capacity. However, the alleged accused persons mentally and physically tortured her raising additional dowry demand. When the aforesaid fact was brought to the notice of parents of the informant, the alleged accused persons apologized with folded hands and gave assurance that they will not misbehave with her in future. Despite the aforesaid, they did not desist from their misdeeds and continued beating, abusing and teasing her. On 27.05.2021, husband of the informant and her in-laws gave her a written compromise letter mentioning therein that they will not misbehave with her again. Accused Karmveer had bad eyes upon the informant and he always attempted to do wrong with her. When she told this to her husband, he beat her and abused her. Informant's husband used to pressurize her to have unnatural sex and when she did not agree for the same, she was threatened for life. On 24.06.2023 at about 3-4 P.M. the opposite party no.2 was beaten by her husband as well as other family members due to which she suffered fracture on her hand. Other allegations of molestation and physical harassment has been detailed in the F.I.R. 6. After investigation charge-sheet has been submitted on 22.7.2023 against the applicant i.e. husband and mother-in-law of the victim and applicants have been summoned on 20.09.2023. 7. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State submits that charge-sheet in the matter has been filed on 22.07.2023d whereas applicants have been summoned on 20.09.2023.They further submit that statements of the charge-sheet witnesses have not been annexed alongwith the application. They also submit that statements of charge-sheet witnesses have also not been annexed and the material collected by Investigating Officer during course of investigation on the basis of which, he has formed an opinion against the applicants, has neither been detailed in the affidavit accompanying of present application nor the copies of the same have been brought on record. Referring to the judgment of Supreme Court in Kaptan Singh Vs. State of U.P., (2021) 9 SCC 35, it is thus urged by learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. that in the absence of above, the challenge laid to the charge-sheet cannot be examined by this Court. 8. It is to be seen that in the present case the applicants have been summoned on 20.09.2023. 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. 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. 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 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. 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. 13. In the present case, the summons has been served on the applicants on 20.09.2023, 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 court proceedings since 2023. 11. 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 one and half 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 :- 6.2.2025 Abhishek Singh Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad