Allahabad High Court
SMT. SEEMA CHAUDHARY AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
Holding
The appeal is allowed and the summoning order and all criminal proceedings are quashed.
Summary
The appellants, Smt. Seema Chaudhary and another, appealed against a summoning order and criminal proceedings under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and several IPC sections. The respondents, who were tenants in the appellants' shop, defaulted on rent, prompting the appellants to file a civil eviction suit (SCC No.41/2013) in 2013, which was decreed in 2019. The respondents later lodged a complaint alleging that the appellants used force to vacate the shop on 22 February 2013, a complaint the court found to be false and filed before the civil suit. The High Court held that the appellants had no criminal intent, having pursued legal remedies through civil proceedings, and therefore the criminal case was untenable. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, quashing the summoning order dated 11 March 2019 and the entire criminal proceeding.
Issues considered
- Whether the criminal proceedings under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and IPC sections are maintainable given the existence of a pending civil eviction suit.
- Whether the summoning order dated 11 March 2019 is valid in view of the alleged false complaint.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 324, 452, 506
- Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 14-A(1), 3(1) Da
Subjects
- SC/ST Act
- false complaint
- eviction suit
- criminal intent
- quash of criminal proceedings
- civil remedy
- IPC offences
- scheduled castes and tribes
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 8021 of 2025
Smt. Seema Chaudhary And Another
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) : G.S. Chauhan
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 51
HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Jitendra Kumar, learned
A.G.A for the State as also perused the record.
2. The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(1) Scheduled Castes &
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred to allow
the present appeal and set aside the summoning order dated 11.03.2019,
passed by learned Special Judge, (SC/ST Act)/ Addl. Session Judge,
Ghaziabad and entire proceeding of S.T. No. 2256 of 2022 (State vs. Smt.
Seema Chaudhary & another), under sections 323/34, 452/34, 506 IPC, and
section 3 (1) Da, of SC/ST Act, Police Station-Sahibabad, District
Ghaziabad.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent-informant
and her husband were tenants in his shop. They defaulted in payment of rent
and, consequently, SCC No. 41/2013 (Smt. Seema Chaudhary vs. Ombir
Singh) was instituted by the appellant. Soon after the said suit for eviction of
the respondent was filed in the year 2013, a complaint making false
allegations against the appellant was lodged by the respondent-complainant.
She alleged therein that the appellants came to her shop at about 2:00 p.m.
on 22.02.2013 and used force against her to get the shop vacated.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the suit of the
appellant was decreed on 05.10.2019. The said decree was challenged before
this Court and the same is still pending. An execution application, being
Civil Misc. No. 62 of 2022, was also filed by the appellant for execution of
the decree passed in the SCC suit.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that had any mala fide
intention existed in the mind of the appellant against the respondent-
CRLA No. 8021 of 2025
2
informant, he would not have taken recourse to legal proceedings by
instituting a suit and thereafter filing an execution application. The
appellants were residing in Delhi and their shop was located at Ghaziabad.
They never visited the shop and had proceeded against the respondent by
filing civil proceedings to get their shop vacated. All the allegations against
the appellants have been made by the respondent in order to continue her
illegal possession of the shop. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set
aside.
6. Learned AGA submits that the impugned order does not suffer from any
infirmity or illegality.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is evident
from the record that civil proceedings against the respondent-informant were
initiated in the year 2013. The SCC suit was filed by the appellant with the
intent to get his shop vacated from the possession of the respondent-
informant. The said suit was decreed in the year 2019 and subsequently an
execution petition was also filed by him. The conduct of the appellant in
taking legal recourse for getting his shop vacated prima facie indicates that
he did not have any criminal intent to get his shop vacated by using force.
The respondent-informant has nowhere mentioned in her complaint about
the pendency of civil proceedings against her. Perusal of the complaint filed
along with this criminal appeal indicates that the SCC suit was filed on
12.03.2013, whereas the alleged date of incident in the complaint is
20.02.2013. It further reflects that the complaint against the appellant was
filed soon before the institution of the civil suit.
8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The summoning order dated
11.03.2019, passed by learned Special Judge, (SC/ST Act)/ Addl. Session
Judge, Ghaziabad and entire proceeding of S.T. No. 2256 of 2022 (State vs.
Smt. Seema Chaudhary & another), under sections 323/34, 452/34, 506 IPC,
and section 3 (1) Da, of SC/ST Act, Police Station-Sahibabad, District
Ghaziabad, are hereby quashed.
March 19, 2026
Ujjawal
(Anil Kumar-X,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
UJJAWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…