Allahabad High Court
Siraj Ahmad Alias Siraz Ahmad vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home ... on 18 May, 2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC-LKO:35623
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5970 of 2024
Siraj Ahmad Alias Siraz Ahmad
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Suhail Kashif, Rajesh Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A., Adarsh Pratap Singh, Mohd. Hanzala, Prabhat
Court No. - 15
HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.
1. The present application has been filed seeking quashing of the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.7269 of 2022, Mohd. Naeem Vs. Siraj Ahmad and others, under Sections 427, 406 and 379 IPC, Police Station Fatehpur, District Barabanki and the summoning order dated 01.11.2023 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.19, Barabanki.
2. This Court passed an order on 04.05.2026 that the case will not be adjourned on the request of counsel for both the parties on the next date. Today, again counsel for opposite party no.2 has sent illness slip. Since this Court has already passed a stop order, therefore, the Court is proceeding to hear the case on merit.
3. It is the case of the applicant that opposite party no.2 filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. mentioning therein that he is doing textile business, for which he had taken a Godown from the applicant on 01.01.2005 on a monthly rent of Rs.300/- and also gave advance of Rs.6,000/- in lieu thereof and in this regard an agreement was entered into between the parties. Since then opposite party no.2 used to store and goods and essential items of his shop in the godown. It is said on on 18.03.2018, an agreement was entered into between the applicant and opposite party no.2 regarding the aforesaid godown and in lieu thereof, opposite party no.2 has given clothes of Rs.13,000/- and Rs.50,000/- cash to the applicant. It was also agreed by the applicant that he will sell the said godown to opposite party no.2 for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and as and when he needs money, the remaining amount i.e. Rs.1,37,000/- will be paid by opposite party no.2. It is said that till 2018, the applicant received approximately Rs.1,00,000/-. On 12.01.2022 at 2 PM, the applicant along with others came to the godown and told him to vacate the godown, otherwise they will vacate the godown forcibly by throwing the items outside. On 18.01.2022 at 11 PM, the applicant and others broke open the lock of the godown and looted the items amounting to Rs.1,75,000/-, including 44 litres of Peppermint Oil and clothes. It is said that on 16.03.2022, the complainant filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., which was treated as a complaint case, in which the applicant has been summoned.
4. Counsel for the applicant submits that opposite party no.2 himself has filed Civil Suit No.374 of 2022 for permanent injunction. He further submits that once the Civil Suit is pending between the parties, opposite party no.2 cannot be allowed to launch criminal proceedings and whatever facts he has stated, the same are not supported by any evidence. Counsel for the applicant has invited the attention of the Court towards paragraph-4 of the counter affidavit filed by opposite party no.2, which reads as under:-
?4. That the contents of paragraphs 6 and 7 of the present petition are false, fabricated, and misconceived and in reply thereof contents of para 3 of this counter affidavit is referred. It is further submitted that the Petitioner has received substantial money in pursuance of the agreement to sale, and when the answering Respondent asked him to execute the sale deed, the Petitioner kept on making excuses and, after some time, asked to vacate the shop in question. Thereafter, on 12.01.2022, the Petitioner, accompanied by the other accused person, came to the godown of the answering Respondent and threatened the Respondent to vacate the shop, otherwise, he would break the lock and throw the items kept inside. Again, the Petitioner came on 18.01.2022, accompanied by the other accused persons, and illegally broke into the shop and plundered the items kept therein. On the next day, when Petitioner reached his shop, he found his shop scattered, therefore, the Respondent went to the Petitioner and upon asking about the incident, the Petitioner accompanied by the other accused persons started beating him with the help of lathi-danda and threatened to vacate the shop. Thereupon the Petitioner called the police on 112. Upon reaching at the place of occurrence, the Police instead of taking action against the Petitioner, the Police arrested the answering Respondent and kept him in the Police Station till 20.01.2022, when relatives of the Respondent started persuading the Officials of the police. Subsequently, the Police filed Challan U/s- 151, 107 and 116 of Cr.P.C., against the answering Respondent before the Learned. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Fatehpur, District- Barabanki with the collusion of the Petitioner. A true copy of the Challan is being annexed herewith as Annexure No.3 to this Counter Affidavit. Subsequently, the Respondent preferred a written complaint before the Police of Police Station- Fatehpur, but the Police, which was already in collusion with the Petitioner, did not take any action, therefore, the Respondent preferred a complaint before the Superintendent of the Police, District- Barabanki, on 05.03.2022 who also did not take any action. A true copy of the application dated 05.03.2022 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 4 to this Counter Affidavit.?
5. Counsel for the applicant further submits that opposite party no.2 himself has admitted the entire facts and the incidents dated 12.01.2022, 18.01.2022 and 21.01.2022 and has submitted that he was challanned under Sections 107, 115 and 151 Cr.P.C. for the aforesaid incidents. It is submitted that after going through the record of the Civil Suit as well as challani report, it is clear that criminal colour has been given by opposite party no.2 though he was challanned under Sections 107, 115 and 151 Cr.P.C. for breach of the law and order. In support of is contention, counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon a judgement of this Court passed in the case of Kunal Shah and others Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2024 (2) JIC 836 (All).
6. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Piyush Kumar Singh, learned AGA and perused the record.
7. After going through the record, it is evident that Civil Suit No.374 of 2022 has been filed by opposite party no.2 against the applicant for permanent injunction in respect of the shop in question. Opposite party no.2 is a tenant, whereas applicant is a landlord. For the alleged incidents, opposite party no.2 was also challaned under Sections 107, 115 and 151 Cr.P.C. It appears that criminal colour has been given by opposite party no.2 and serious allegation has been levelled by filing an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., which was later on treated as a complaint case just to settle his personal score.
8. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and also looking to the fact that civil dispute is going on between the parties and in order to give criminal colour, the present complaint has been instituted by opposite party no.2 just to settle his personal score coupled with the fact that opposite party no.2 was also challanned under Sections 107, 115 and 151 Cr.P.C. for the alleged breach of law and order. Therefore, continuance of the criminal proceedings against the applicant are nothing but abuse of process of law and they deserved to be quashed.
9. Application is accordingly allowed and the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.7269 of 2022, Mohd. Naeem Vs. Siraj Ahmad and others, under Sections 427, 406 and 379 IPC, Police Station Fatehpur, District Barabanki and the summoning order dated 01.11.2023 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.19, Barabanki, are hereby quashed qua the applicant.
(Brij Raj Singh,J.) May 18, 2026 Rao/-