Bhawna Jain vs State Of Uttar Pradesh

2025 INSC 1217 NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Criminal Appeal No. 4415 of 2025 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.2241 of 2023)

BHAWNA JAIN … Appellant (s)

VERSUS

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER … Respondent(s)

ORDER

Leave granted.

2. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning

the order dated 24.01.2023 passed by the High Court of

Judicature at Allahabad. Vide aforesaid order, the application 1

filed by the appellant seeking quashing of chargesheet dated

25.11.2021, summoning order dated 09.02.2022 and further

proceedings arising out of FIR No.506 of 2021 registered under

Sections 406, 420, 504 and 506 of IPC at police station Nai Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ANITA MALHOTRA Date: 2025.10.11 14:18:28 IST Reason:

Mandi, District Muzaffarnagar, was dismissed. 1 Criminal Misc. Application No. 38152 of 2022.

1 Crl.A. @ S.L.P.(Crl.)No.2241 of 2023

3. Briefly, the pleaded facts are that a plot no.70,

measuring 240 square yards, was purchased jointly by the late

husband of the appellant (Atul Kumar Jain) and Anurag Jain,

respondent No.2/ complainant, on 01.01.2014. After the

purchase, the disputed property was mutually partitioned on

15.02.2015. The northern portion came to be the share of the

late husband of the appellant, whereas the southern portion

was allotted to the respondent No.2/complainant. The late

husband of the appellant raised a loan of ₹25 lakhs from

Allahabad Bank by mortgaging his share of property, which now

stands repaid. The husband of the appellant expired on

15.10.2016. No issue was raised by the respondent No.2/

complainant regarding any dispute during the lifetime of her

late husband. About two years after the death of the husband of

the appellant, respondent No.2 filed a Private Complaint

No.2233/9 of 2018 in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Muzaffarnagar, under Section 409 read with 420 IPC against the

appellant and some officials of Allahabad Bank. The Trial Court,

in the aforesaid complaint, vide order dated 14.11.2019,

directed the police to conduct investigation under Section 202

Cr.P.C. The police investigated the matter and submitted a

2 Crl.A. @ S.L.P.(Crl.)No.2241 of 2023

report dated 05.01.2020 to the Court, clearly mentioning

therein that the loan was raised by late husband of the

appellant against his share of the plot. During the pendency of

the aforesaid complaint, a settlement was arrived at between

the appellant and the respondent No.2/ complainant, the terms

thereof were reduced to writing on 29.09.2020. A cheque for

₹1,00,000/- was issued by the appellant to respondent No.2/

complainant. Subsequent thereto, respondent No.2/

complainant filed an application before the Court concerned

seeking permission to withdraw the complaint. The prayer was

allowed, and the complaint filed by the respondent No.2 was

dismissed as withdrawn under Section 203 Cr.P.C., vide order

dated 04.09.2021.

4. Immediately thereafter, the respondent

No.2/complainant, concealing the factum of filing of earlier

complaint and dismissal thereof as withdrawn, filed fresh

complaint bearing No.1811/11 of 2021 under Section 156(3)

Cr.P.C. on the basis of which the FIR in question was registered.

Chargesheet was filed on 25.11.2021, on which the Court took

cognizance on 09.02.2022 by summoning the appellant. It was

at this stage that the appellant filed application before the High

3 Crl.A. @ S.L.P.(Crl.)No.2241 of 2023

Court seeking quashing of all proceedings in pursuance of the

FIR in question. The same having been dismissed, the order is

impugned before this Court.

5. Referring to the aforesaid factual matrix, the learned

counsel for the appellant submitted that the intention of

respondent No.2/ complainant is to harass the appellant and to

“arm-twist” her to gain undue benefit, much after the death of

her husband. The appellant is a cancer patient since 2016. The

second complaint was filed by the respondent No.2/

complainant after withdrawing the earlier complaint, with the

same allegations, and without disclosing this fact in the second

complaint. The aforesaid facts have not been properly

appreciated by the Courts concerned. In fact, it had come in the

police report submitted in the first complaint filed by the

respondent No.2/ complainant that the late husband of the

appellant had mortgaged his share of the property to avail the

loan, which otherwise now stands fully settled by the appellant

after the death of her husband. The appellant was merely a

guarantor of the loan. It was merely a civil dispute which has

been given a different colour. The allegations in the second

complaint filed in the Court were merely that on 30.08.2021 the

4 Crl.A. @ S.L.P.(Crl.)No.2241 of 2023

respondent No.2/complainant asked appellant either to pay the

amount according to the compromise or to get the property

released after repayment of the loan, she misbehaved. The fact

remains that the first complaint was withdrawn by the

respondent No.2/complainant much later on 04.09.2021. Any

allegations prior to that will not make out a case for registration

of a criminal case. In any case, the alleged violation of any

compromise will not result in any criminal liability. Continuation

of the proceedings against the appellant would amount to

abuse of the process of law and result in unnecessary

harassment of the appellant, in which she has no role to play.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the

respondents submitted that there is no error in the impugned

order. The appellant, being a guarantor in the loan raised by her

late husband, had knowledge of the entire case, hence, was

party to the cheating. She can also be proceeded against

independently, even after death of her husband, if the

settlement arrived at by the appellant was not adhered to.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

relevant record.

5 Crl.A. @ S.L.P.(Crl.)No.2241 of 2023

8. Some of the facts not in dispute are that the plot in

dispute was purchased jointly by the late husband of the

appellant and the respondent No.2/complainant on 01.01.2014.

A loan of ₹25 lakh was raised by the late husband of the

appellant from Allahabad Bank on 25.02.2015. Though the

appellant pleaded that the property was partitioned before that

on 15.02.2015, this fact has been disputed by the respondent

No.2/ complainant. It is alleged by the appellant that the loan

was raised by mortgaging the share of the property which had

come to the share of the late husband of the appellant. The

appellant was merely a guarantor to the loan. This was also

reported by the police upon investigation, as directed by the

Court in the first complaint filed by the respondent

No.2/complainant. The husband of the appellant died on

15.10.2016. Till that date and about two years thereafter,

respondent No.2/ complainant did not raise any issue. The first

complaint, dated 04.07.2018, was filed by him in the Court. A

compromise was arrived at between the parties during the

pendency of the aforesaid complaint on 29.09.2020. The first

complaint was withdrawn by the respondent No.2/ complainant

on 04.09.2021. Immediately thereafter, a fresh complaint was

6 Crl.A. @ S.L.P.(Crl.)No.2241 of 2023

filed with the same allegations, with the addition of non-

adherence to the terms of compromise. The factum of filing and

withdrawal of the earlier complaint was concealed. On the basis

of the aforesaid complaint, FIR in question was registered in

which, the appellant was arrayed as accused no. 1 along with 3-

4 unknown persons.

9. The facts, as briefly noticed above, clearly show that

the appellant was not the co-owner of the property with the

respondent No.2/ complainant; and it was her late husband who

died on 15.10.2016. During his lifetime and nearly two years

thereafter, no issue was raised by the respondent No.2/

complainant. The appellant was merely a guarantor to the loan

raised by her late husband, which even as per the police report,

was against his share of the property. The fact that the loan now

stands repaid is not in dispute. An earlier complaint filed by the

respondent No.2/ complainant with the same allegations against

the appellant and bank officials came to be dismissed as

withdrawn. In the second complaint, the appellant was shown

as accused No.1, whereas 3-4 unknown accused were

mentioned. The second complaint was filed without disclosing

the factum of the filing and withdrawal of the first complaint

7 Crl.A. @ S.L.P.(Crl.)No.2241 of 2023

concerning the same dispute. Even in the chargesheet filed in

pursuance of the FIR in question, there is no mention of the

filing and withdrawal of the first complaint for the same dispute.

The chargesheet did not elucidate as to how the case was made

out against the appellant. Even in the cognizance and

summoning order passed by the Court below, no reasons have

been assigned as to how a case is made out against the

appellant, who was merely a guarantor to the loan, which, after

the death of the husband of the appellant, stands settled. From

the facts as notices above no case for summoning the appellant

in the complaint was made out.

10. For the reasons mentioned above, in our view, the

present appeal deserves to be allowed as continuation of the

proceedings against the appellant, in pursuance of the FIR in

question will amount to abuse of process of law. Accordingly,

the impugned order dated 24.01.2023 passed by the High Court

is set aside. FIR No. 506 of 2021 dated 04.10.2021 registered at

police station Nai Mandi, District Muzaffarnagar and all

proceedings subsequent thereto, including the summoning

order dated 09.02.2022, stand quashed.

8 Crl.A. @ S.L.P.(Crl.)No.2241 of 2023

11. The appeal is accordingly, allowed.

………………………………., J.

[RAJESH BINDAL]

…………………...…………., J.

[PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA]

New Delhi;

September 16, 2025.

9