[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Allahabad High Court
Smt. Seema Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 31 March, 2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:67167
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 14452 of 2025
Smt. Seema Singh
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Pawankumar Dubey
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 89
HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J. 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Amrit Raj, learned AGA for the State are present.
2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed with a prayer to set aside the order dated 16.10.2024 passed by Additional Civil Judge (S.D.)/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.20, Shahjahanpur in Misc. Case No. 217 of 2024 (Smt. Seema Singh Vs. Shailendra Singh @ Pintu and others) Under Section 173 (4) BNSS, Police Station Khudaganj, District-Shahjahanpur. The petition also seeks to set aside the order dated 22.08.2025 passed by Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur in Criminal Revision No. 1 of 2025 (Smt. Seema Vs. State of U.P. and another) by which the said revision filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid order of the learned trial court was also dismissed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that an application under Section 173(4) BNSS was filed by the petitioner before the concerned learned Magistrate. His application was registered as Case No.217 of 2024 (Smt. Seema Singh Vs. Shailendra Singh @ Pintu and others), which was dismissed by the learned Magistrate on 16.10.2024. It was submitted by learned counsel that the learned Magistrate has ignored the allegations mentioned in the application and it solely relied upon the police report which mentions that certain civil dispute between the petitioner and his cousins is pending. However, the dispute is between the petitioner and his real sister. Allegations in the application are not against his real sister, but are against the respondent no.2, who is cousin of petitioner. The petitioner and her husband found their house broken on 10.6.2024 at about 9:00 am. They suspect that their house was intruded at the instance of respondent no.2. It was also mentioned in the application that after they inquired about the incident, the respondent no.2 threatened them and also fired upon the petitioner and her husband, but luckily they were saved.
4. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has challenged the order dated 16.10.2024 in Criminal Revision No.01 of 2025 (Smt. Seema Singh vs. State of U.P. & Anr.). The revisional court also discarded the allegations mentioned in the application and, accordingly, it dismissed the criminal revision by order dated 22.8.2025 and upheld the order dated 16.10.2024. It was submitted that neither of the courts below have considered the allegations mentioned in the application. Hence, both orders suffer from illegality and deserve to be set aside.
5. Learned AGA for the State submitted that allegation in the application under Section 173(4) BNSS itself indicate that allegations were made on the suspicion. Suspicion cannot form basis of any criminal prosecution. The concerned Magistrate also called report regarding allegations from the concerned Police Station. Said police report was also considered by the learned Magistrate. Said police report also indicates that father of the petitioner transferred his land in favour of his nephews. That seems to be bone of contention causing animosity between the parties.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
7. It is very much evident that allegations have been made on suspicion. Suspicion cannot form a basis of any criminal prosecution. It has also been alleged that petitioner and her husband were fired upon by the respondent no.2 but they escaped. It becomes a common practice of litigants to exaggerate and embellish their concocted allegations. Such type of allegations cannot be relied only for the sake of initiating criminal prosecution in absence of any cogent and reliable evidence.
8. This petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Anil Kumar-X,J.)
March 31, 2026
SK
