Allowed¶21

Smt. Seema Chaudhary and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC19 Mar 2026CRLA/8021/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, CRLA No. 8021 of 2025 (decided March 19, 2026, Anil Kumar-X, J.): quashing of summoning order dated 11.03.2019 and proceedings in S.T. No. 2256 of 2022 under sections 323/34, 452/34, 506 IPC and section 3 (1) Da SC/ST Act; complaint held to be lodged soon before the civil suit for eviction (SCC No. 41/2013, decreed 05.10.2019, execution Civil Misc. No. 62 of 2022); absence of criminal intent shown by recourse to civil remedies; appeal under Section 14-A(1) SC/ST Act allowed.

What did the court decide?

Summoning order dated 11.03.2019 passed by learned Special Judge, (SC/ST Act)/ Addl. Session Judge, Ghaziabad and the entire proceeding of S.T. No. 2256 of 2022 (State vs. Smt. Seema Chaudhary & another) quashed. ¶21

Smt. Seema Chaudhary and Another vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 8021 of 2025

¶3

Smt. Seema Chaudhary And Another

¶4

.....Appellant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of U.P. and Another

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Appellant(s)	: G.S.	Chauhan
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: G.A.

¶9

Court No. - 51

¶10

HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Jitendra Kumar, learned A.G.A for the State as also perused the record.

¶12

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.

¶13

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.

¶14

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.

¶15

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that had any mala fide intention existed in the mind of the appellant against the respondent-

¶16

CRLA No. 8021 of 2025

¶17

¶18

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.

¶19

Learned AGA submits that the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality.

¶20

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 respondentinformant. 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.

¶21

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.

¶22

March 19, 2026 Ujjawal

¶23

(Anil Kumar-X,J.)

¶24

Digitally signed by :- UJJAWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Seema Chaudhary and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Seema Chaudhary and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Santosh Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P.

Smt Sumitra Devi Vs State of Up and 6 Others

Bhanu Maurya and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Satish Alias Kalwa and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Sumitra Devi vs State of Up and 6 Others

Jagat Singh Chouhan and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another