Proceedings Quashed Where Accused Was Mere Guarantor and Second Complaint Concealed Earlier Withdrawal

A bench of Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra heard an appeal by Bhawna Jain challenging the Allahabad High Court’s order refusing to quash FIR No.506 of 2021 and related proceedings arising from a complaint alleging offences under Sections 406, 420, 504 and 506 IPC. The appeal arose from a summons issued on 09.02.2022 and a chargesheet dated 25.11.2021 following registration of the FIR on 04.10.2021.

The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court order, holding that continuation of criminal proceedings against the appellant would amount to abuse of the process of law. The judges noted that the appellant was not the co-owner of the disputed plot, was merely a guarantor to a loan raised by her late husband, and that the complainant had earlier filed and then withdrawn a complaint raising the same allegations but had concealed that fact in the subsequent complaint which led to the FIR. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “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respondent No.2/ complainant with the same allegations against the appellant and bank officials came to be dismissed as withdrawn.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 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.” The Court further stated that “continuation of the proceedings against the appellant, in pursuance of the FIR in question will amount to abuse of process of law.”

Background The dispute concerned a 240 square yard plot purchased jointly on 01.01.2014 by the appellant’s late husband and the complainant (respondent No.2). The parties purportedly partitioned the plot on 15.02.2015 and the late husband raised a loan of ₹25 lakh from Allahabad Bank, mortgaging his share. The husband died on 15.10.2016. The complainant first filed a private complaint in 2018; police investigation recorded that the loan was raised against the husband’s share. While that complaint was pending, the parties recorded a compromise on 29.09.2020 and the complainant withdrew the complaint on 04.09.2021 under Section 203 Cr.P.C. Shortly thereafter the complainant filed a fresh complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., omitting disclosure of the earlier withdrawn complaint, which led to registration of FIR No.506/2021. A chargesheet followed and the trial court summoned the appellant.

The appellant challenged the summoning and chargesheet as mala fide and harassment, stressing her status as guarantor and that the loan stood repaid. The State contended that the appellant could be proceeded against independently. The Supreme Court examined the record, including the police report in the first complaint, the written compromise and the absence of any explanation in the chargesheet or cognizance order as to how criminality was made out against a guarantor whose husband had died and whose loan stood repaid. Finding that material facts were concealed in the second complaint and that the proceedings lacked basis, the Court held that continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of process. The appeal was allowed; FIR No.506 of 2021 and all subsequent proceedings, including the summoning order dated 09.02.2022, were quashed.

Case Details: Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 4415 of 2025 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.2241 of 2023) Case Title: Bhawna Jain v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Bhawna Jain (Appellant) — advocate names not indicated in the judgment For the Respondent(s): State of Uttar Pradesh; Anurag Jain (Respondent No.2/complainant) — advocate names not indicated in the judgment