Full Judgment Text
Crl.A. @ S.L.P.(Crl.)No.2241 of 2023
NON-REPORTABLE
2025 INSC 1217
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)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
2. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning
the order dated 24.01.2023 passed by the High Court of
1
Judicature at Allahabad. Vide aforesaid order, the application
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
Signature Not Verified
Sections 406, 420, 504 and 506 of IPC at police station Nai
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
NON-REPORTABLE
2025 INSC 1217
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)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
2. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning
the order dated 24.01.2023 passed by the High Court of
1
Judicature at Allahabad. Vide aforesaid order, the application
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
Signature Not Verified
Sections 406, 420, 504 and 506 of IPC at police station Nai
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