On 28 July 2025, the Allahabad High Court allowed the criminal revision petition filed by Smt. Uma Chauhan, setting aside the order of the Additional Civil Judge (S.D.), Ghaziabad, which had rejected her discharge application under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C.
Background of the Dispute
The dispute arose out of a property transaction between Smt. Uma Chauhan and Smt. Priya Goel, the owner of a house in Ghaziabad. A registered agreement to sell was executed on 08 July 2016 for ₹38.5 lakhs, of which ₹5 lakhs was paid as advance. However, the sale deed was not executed due to technical issues. Consequently, a rental agreement was executed, and Uma Chauhan took possession of the house as a tenant.
Read also:- Bombay High Court Rejects Wife’s Plea to Transfer Divorce Case From Pune to Osmanabad
The complainant, Yogesh Kumar Goel, filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., later converted to a complaint, alleging that Uma Chauhan:
- Illegally occupied the third floor of the house.
- Installed an electricity meter in her name without consent.
- Caused damage to the property.
This led to her being summoned under Section 420 IPC (cheating).
"No tenant can enjoy the tenanted premises without electricity and it is not the case that apart from the additional meter, there was any other meter." – Hon’ble Court
Read also:- Allahabad High Court Stays Externment Orders Against Ashu Garg Passed Under Goonda Act
Earlier, Uma Chauhan had filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings, which the High Court disposed of on 10 August 2022, allowing her to approach the lower court with a discharge application. The discharge plea was subsequently rejected on 14 November 2022 by the trial court.
In the revision, her counsel argued that the dispute was civil in nature, and criminal proceedings were being misused to exert pressure. It was highlighted that:
- There is no mention in the civil suit about illegal occupation or damages.
- The electric meter was installed following due procedure, and bills were being raised as per the rent agreement.
- The complainant is not the property owner; Smt. Priya Goel is.
Read also:- SC Cancels Bail Over Broken RS.25 Lakh Undertaking in Fraud Case
After thorough analysis, the High Court made the following key observations:
- The rental agreement explicitly allowed payment of electricity bills through an additional meter.
- No evidence was provided that Uma Chauhan obtained the meter fraudulently.
- The U.P. Electricity Supply Code, 2005 allows tenants to obtain electricity connections independently under certain conditions (Clause 4.4 and Annexure 4.2).
- The complainant’s statement was not legally recorded as per procedure.
“Contradictory pleas have been raised in the civil and criminal proceedings… the present criminal proceedings are an abuse of court process.” – Hon’ble Rajeev Misra
Citing Supreme Court rulings including Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor and N. Raghvender v. State of Andhra Pradesh, the Court held that the essential ingredients of Section 420 IPC were not satisfied, particularly the requirement of dishonest intention from the inception.
Read also:- High Court Imposes Fine on Lawyer for Disrespectful Conduct During Virtual Hearing
The High Court concluded that:
- The criminal case was filed maliciously to gain leverage in the ongoing civil case.
- There was no prima facie case of cheating under Section 420 IPC.
“The revisionist being a tenant had the legal right to obtain an electricity connection and the installation of the meter cannot be termed as fraudulent.” – Hon’ble Court
Accordingly, the Court:
- Allowed the revision.
- Quashed the order dated 14.11.2022.
- Terminated the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 5385 of 2021.
Case Title: Smt. Uma Chauhan vs. State of U.P. and 2 Others
Case Number: CRLR(A) 3431/2023
Shared by:
Advocate Mohammad Samiuzzaman Khan
Gmail ID: samiuzzama0786@gmail.com