Second Complaint Filed Without Disclosing Factum Of Filing & Withdrawal Of First: Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings

The appellant had filed the appeal against an order of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the application filed by the appellant seeking quashing of the chargesheet, summoning order and further proceedings arising out of an FIR registered under Sections 406, 420, 504 and 506 of the IPC.

The Division Bench of Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra said, “The first complaint was withdrawn by the respondent No.2/ complainant on 04.09.2021. Immediately thereafter, a fresh complaint was filed with the same allegations, with the addition of nonadherence 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.”

Senior Advocate Sanjay M. Nuli represented the Appellant while AOR Vishwa Pal Singh represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

A plot of land was purchased jointly by the late husband of the appellant and the second respondent complainant. After the purchase, the disputed property was mutually partitioned. The late husband of the appellant raised a loan of ₹25 lakh from by mortgaging his share of property and the same was repaid. The husband of the appellant expired in the year 2016. About two years after the death of the husband of the appellant, the second respondent filed a private complaint under Section 409 read with 420 IPC, against the appellant and some officials of the Bank. The police investigated the matter and submitted a report, 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 complainant. A cheque for ₹1 lakh was issued by the appellant to the respondent complainant.

Subsequent thereto, the respondent 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 The prayer was allowed, and the complaint filed by the respondent was dismissed as withdrawn under Section 203 Cr.P.C. Immediately thereafter, the respondent complainant, concealing the factum of filing of the earlier complaint and dismissal thereof as withdrawn, filed a fresh complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on the basis of which the FIR in question was registered. A Chargesheet was filed, on which the Court took cognisance by summoning the appellant. It was at this stage that the appellant filed an application before the High Court seeking the quashing of all proceedings in pursuance of the FIR in question. The same was dismissed, and this order came to be challenged before the Apex Court.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the appellant alleged 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 complainant. The husband of the appellant died in the year 2016, and till that date and about two years thereafter, the respondent complainant did not raise any issue.

“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 Bench noted.

The Bench, thus, allowed the appeal and quashed the order passed by the High Court.

Cause Title: Bhawna Jain v. State of Uttar Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1217)

Appearance

Appellant: Senior Advocate Sanjay M. Nuli, Advocates Susheel Tomar, Harshita Verma, Amit Jain, Dimcy Chopra, AOR Sanjeev Malhotra

Respondent: AOR Vishwa Pal Singh, Advocates Vinod Kumar Tiwari, Adesh Kr. Gill, Prateek Rai, Bharpur Singh, Sanjeev Kumar, AOR Vivek Gupta, Ankit Verma, Govind Gupta

Click here to read/download Judgment