ASHISHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
            MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 10261 of 2025

Ashish
                                                                 .....Petitioner(s)
                                     Versus

State of U.P. and Another
                                                               .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)           : Abhimanu Singh, Hari Om Pandey
Counsel for Respondent(s)           : G.A.

Court No. - 89
                 HON'BLE DIVESH CHANDRA SAMANT, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned AGA for the
State are present.

2. Instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been
preferred by the petitioner with the following prayer:-

     "Issue direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order
     of charge frame dated 18.12.2023 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate,
     Muzaffarnagar and impugned order dated 24.07.2025 as well as suo-
     moto order dated 24.07.2025 passed by learned Revisional Court passed
     in Criminal Case No. 14138 of 2017 (State Vs. Ashish) arising out of
     Case Crime No. 970 of 2017 under Section 174A I.P.C., Police Station-
     Khatauli, District-Muzaffarnagar."

3. Brief facts of the case are that an F.I.R. was lodged by Sub-Inspector
Anand Poswal stating that the accused Ashish was absconding in Case
Crime No. 448 of 2017 under Sections 313, 323, 506, and 498-A I.P.C.
An order under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was issued by the learned C.J.M.,
Muzaffarnagar, on 17.07.2017 and duly served on 21.07.2017. Despite
service, the accused failed to appear or surrender and attempted to dispose
of his property, thereby committing an offence under Section 174-A
I.P.C. Consequently, a charge-sheet was filed, cognizance was taken, and
charges were framed on 18.12.2023. Aggrieved by the charge-framing
order dated 18.12.2023, the petitioner preferred Criminal Revision No.
136 of 2025 (Ashish v. State of U.P.), which was dismissed by the learned
court vide order dated 24.07.2025. A suo motu order dated 24.07.2025
                                                        A227 No. 10261 of 2025
                               2


was also passed against the petitioner. Hence, the present petition has
been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order dated
18.12.2023 passed by the court below, whereby cognizance was taken and
charge was framed against the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary, and perverse.
It is submitted that the said order arises out of Case Crime No. 448 of
2017 under Sections 313, 323, 506, and 498-A I.P.C., which was lodged
by the wife of the petitioner. During the pendency of the said proceedings,
the marriage between the petitioner and his wife came to be dissolved by
a decree of divorce by mutual consent vide order dated 23.05.2023 passed
by the learned competent court.

5. It is further submitted that the petitioner has already been acquitted by
the learned trial court in Sessions Trial No. 316 of 2018 arising out of
Case Crime No. 448 of 2017 under Sections 313, 323, 506, and 498-A
I.P.C. vide judgment and order dated 15.04.2022. Since the petitioner has
been acquitted in the main case, the continuation of further criminal
proceedings, including the F.I.R. registered under Section 174-A I.P.C., is
unnecessary, unjustified, and not sustainable in law.

6. It is also submitted that the Criminal Revision filed by the petitioner
against the charge-framing order dated 18.12.2023 was dismissed by the
learned revisional court without properly considering the pleadings, facts,
circumstances, and material available on record. The revisional court did
not apply its judicial mind hence the revisional order is illegal and
unsustainable in law. In these circumstances, the impugned orders deserve
to be set aside, as the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the
petitioner amounts to an abuse of the process of law.

7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State vehemently opposed the
submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that the
court below, after due consideration of the material available on record
and proper appreciation of the evidence collected during investigation,
has rightly rejected the revision preferred by the petitioner. It is further
submitted that the impugned orders does not suffer from any illegality,
perversity, or infirmity warranting interference by this Court in exercise
                                                     A227 No. 10261 of 2025
                              3


of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India.

8. I have heard the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the parties
and perused the material brought on record.

9. A perusal of the material available on record reveals that an F.I.R.
bearing case crime No. 970 of 2017, which is the basis of current
prosecution, was lodged by opposite party No.2 on 17.09.2017, and
charges were framed on 18.12.2023. Against the charge frame order dated
18.12.2023, the petitioner preferred a revision before the court below
which was dismissed vide order dated 24.07.2025. The F.I.R. dated
17.09.2017 was lodged by opposite party No.2 on the ground that
petitioner has been continuously absconding and wanted in connection
with the Case Crime No. 448 of 2017 under Section 313, 323, 506, 498A
I.P.C. and proceeding under Section 82 Cr.P.C. were initiated against the
accused and notices were served on petitioner's address, however, the
petitioner neither surrendered nor he was arrested. Consequently, charge-
sheet was framed against the petitioner on 18.12.2023 under Section
174A I.P.C. and the case was committed to court of Sessions with
Sessions Trial No. 14138 of 2009. During the pendency of the said
proceeding, the petitioner was acquitted of the charges in case crime No.
448 of 2017.

10. The principal submission of the petitioner is that the case under
Section 174-A I.P.C. should not continue because he has already been
acquitted in the main criminal case (Case Crime No. 448 of 2017). It is
submitted that the proceedings under Section 174-A I.P.C. were started
only because he was alleged to be absconding in that main case. Now that
he has been found not guilty in the main case, continuing the proceedings
under Section 174-A I.P.C. would be unfair and would amount to misuse
of the legal process.

11. From the material brought on record, it transpires that the F.I.R.
giving rise to the present prosecution under Section 174-A I.P.C. was
lodged on the ground that the petitioner was absconding in Case Crime
No. 448 of 2017 and that proclamation proceedings under Section 82
                                                               A227 No. 10261 of 2025
                                   4


Cr.P.C. had been initiated against him. It is not disputed that subsequently
the petitioner has been acquitted in the said sessions trial vide judgment
and order dated 15.04.2022.

12. It appears that the charge was framed on 18.12.2023 without properly
considering that the petitioner had already been acquitted in the main case
prior to that date, and the revisional court, while dismissing Criminal
Revision No. 136 of 2025, also failed to consider the legal effect of such
acquittal and its impact on the continuation of proceedings under Section
174-A IPC.

13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Daljit Singh v. State of
Haryana & Anr., 2025 Lawsuit (SC) 17, on the basis that in the main
case a compromise had been effected and there is no case for which the
presence of the accused is required, quashed all the proceeding by
observing as under :

     "10. None has disputed the above or brought to the attention of this Court
     such a fact that the said arrangement has not been complied with.

     11. The Appellant has been acquitted which means that there is no case
     for which his presence is required to be secured. Resultantly, the appeal
     is allowed. In the attending facts and circumstances of the case, i.e. that
     the original offence pertains to the year 2010; the money subject matter
     of dispute stands paid, the judgment of the High Court with the
     particulars as mentioned in paragraph 1 of this judgment, stands quashed
     and set aside. All criminal proceedings, inclusive of the FIR under
     Section 174A IPC, shall stand closed. The Appellant’s status, as a
     ‘proclaimed person’ stands quashed.

     Pending Application(s) if any, stand disposed of.".

14. In the present case, the petitioner has already been acquitted in Case
Crime No. 448 of 2017, and therefore there is no need to secure his
attendance in those proceedings. As a result, the very basis for initiating
proceedings under Section 174-A IPC no longer exists, and in light of the
law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, continuing the impugned
proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
                                                                                           A227 No. 10261 of 2025
                                                                   5


                                    15. In view of the foregoing discussion and the law laid down by the
                                    Hon’ble Supreme Court in Diljit Singh (supra), this Court, in exercise of
                                    its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,
                                    finds it appropriate to interfere with the impugned order dated 18.12.2023
                                    framing charge as well as the revisional order dated 24.07.2025, both of
                                    which are legally unsustainable and liable to be set aside

                                    16. Accordingly, the petition is allowed.

                                    17. The order dated 18.12.2023 passed by the court below framing charge
                                    under Section 174-A I.P.C. as well as the revisional order dated
                                    24.07.2025 passed in Criminal Revision No. 136 of 2025 are hereby set
                                    aside and all the criminal proceeding arisingout of F.I.R. bearing case
                                    crime No. 970 of 2017 under Section 174A I.P.C., Police Station-
                                    Khatauli, District-Muzaffarnagar shall stand quashed.



                                                                                 (Divesh Chandra Samant,J.)
                                    February 4, 2026
                                    Karan




Digitally signed by :-
KARAN KUMAR RAO
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad