Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:8383 Court No. - 52 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 30882 of 2024 Applicant :- Rajesh Singh Tomar And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shekhar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ramesh Chandra Upadhyay Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J. 1. Heard Mr. Ramesh Kumar Singh, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Shekhar Singh, learned counsel for applicants, Mr. Ramesh Chandra Upadhyay, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Mr. Satendra Tiwari, learned counsel for the State. 2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the Non-bailable warrants, N.S. as well as process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. in pursuance of the order dated 03.05.2024 as well as other subsequent order passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Xth, Agra in Case No.3260 of 2009 (State vs. Rajesh Singh Tomar and another), arising out of Case Crime No.430 of 2008, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S.-Sadar, District-Agra. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that earlier the applicants were released on bail in the year 2008. Thereafter, due to personal difficulty as detailed in the affidavit, they could not appear on a few dates, therefore, N.B.W. has been issued and proceedings U/s 82/83 Cr.P.C. has also been initiated. Thus, some time may be granted to the applicants to appear before the court below and apply for bail. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicants to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against them. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicants have also been touched upon at length. 4. At the very outset, learned A.G.A. as well as counsel for the opposite party no.2 point out that charge sheet in the present case is of the year 2008 and the applicants have not appeared since very beginning, which shows from the order sheet as annexed at Page 16 of the application. Non bailable warrants have also been issued against the applicants but they are not appearing before Court concerned. The applicants have failed to substantiate before this Court that as to why 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 the applicants are fleeing from the process of law without any reasonable cause. They further submits that the husband of opposite party no.2 has performed second marriage also, therefore, the applicants are avoiding facing trial. 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 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. 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. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for the applicants could not overcome the same. 10. Having heard the learned counsel for applicants and learned A.G.A. for State and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that the objection raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to this application have borne out from the record and further the same could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for applicants, therefore, no good ground exists to entertain the present application. 11. In view of the aforesaid, the present application is dismissed. Order Date :- 16.1.2025 Jitendra/- Digitally signed by :- JITENDRA KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad