Smt Bhawna Jain v. State of U.P. and Another
Case brief
What is this about?
Single judge rejected application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash charge-sheet and summoning order. Court held that facts concealed from co-owner, involving mortgage of joint flats without consent and loan default, distinguished from Commissioner of Police v. Devendra Ananad, making criminal proceedings maintainable.
What did the court decide?
Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash charge-sheet, summoning order and further proceedings rejected.
What the court decided
Court No. - 71
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 38152 of 2022
Applicant :- Smt Bhawna Jain Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Jagdish Prasad Mishra,Satyendra Narayan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mridul Chandra Tiwari,Vatsala Upadhyay
Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and perused the record.
By means of this Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash the charge sheet no.420 of 2021 dated 25.11.2021, cognizance/summoning order dated 09.02.2022 and further proceedings of Case No.1074/9 of 2022 (State versus Smt. Bhawna Jain), arising out of Case Crime no. 506 of 2021, under Sections 406, 420, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Nai Mandi, District Muzaffarnagar.
It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that initially the husband of applicant late Atul Kumar Jain and opposite party no.2 Anurag Jain had purchased a plot jointly on 01.01.2014 and on that plot six flats were constructed with the consent of both the parties. Three flats came into the share of Anurag Jain and rest three flats came into the share of Atul Kumar Jain. Anurag Jain sold out his three flats while Atul Kumar Jain, the husband of the applicant took loan of Rs. 25,00,000/- in 2015 on his 3 flats and the applicant was the guarantor in that loan. After the death of Atul Kumar Jain, the present FIR has been lodged by opposite party no.2 with six years delay. On 11.02.2015, the parties had partitioned the said plot and as per partition, they were in possession over their own portion of plot. The applicant, the wife of deceased Atul Kumar Jain is a cancer patient. She being the legal heir of Atul Kumar Jain is paying instalments of the loan. Opposite party no.2 had entered into a compromise with her. He took Rs. 1,00,000/- as per compromise, but later on dishonoured that compromise. In 2018, complaint No. 2233 of 2018 was filed by opposite party no.2 Anurag Jain against Allahabad Bank, on 04.09.2021 this complaint was dismissed under Section 203 of Cr.P.C. The applicant has not taken any loan. Offence under Sections 406 & 420 I.P.C. cannot be said to be made out against the applicant. She is paying loan in instalments. The case is of civil nature and
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether there is sufficient ground to quash the charge-sheet, summoning order and further proceedings of the case under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Whether the dispute regarding joint property, mortgage of flats without consent, and non-payment of loan constitutes cognizable offences under Sections 406 and 420 I.P.C.
Whether the case is of civil nature and if criminal proceedings in the matter are maintainable.
Parties & counsel
- applicant
Smt Bhawna Jain
Coram
Sadhna Rani (Thakur)
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Allahabad HC
- Decided on
- · January
- Registered
- Case no.
- A482/38152/2022
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court