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

the criminal proceedings cannot be initiated in the matter.

Hence, the prayer is made accordingly.

Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submitted that the

plot was purchased jointly and the partition shown by the

applicant is forged. Out of the six flats constructed over the plot

jointly 3 flats were sold out with the consent of both the plot

purchasers Atul Kumar Jain and opposite party no.2 Anurag

Jain and rest three flats were mortgaged by the husband of the

applicant without the consent of opposite party no.2. The loan

documents appended with the paper book do not show the

signatures of opposite party no.2 that he had given a consent for

taking loan or keeping the documents of the flats in mortgage

with the bank. It is further submitted that the applicant is the

legal heir of deceased Atul Kumar Jain. Out of Rs. 25,00,000/-

loan amount taken in the year 2015 only Rs.2,50,000/- has been

paid and regarding joint flats original documents of all the three

flats are mortgaged with the bank, so opposite party no.2 is

unable to sale the flats of his share. As the loan was taken on

the flats without his consent and without his knowledge and the

documents of the flats were also mortgaged with the bank

without his knowledge, so the offences under Sections 420 and

406 I.P.C. are certainly made out against the applicant, who is

the legal heir of deceased Atul Kumar Jain. The parties had

entered into a compromise, so he withdrew his complaint

No.2233 of 2018 and the same was dismissed on 04.09.2021,

under Section 203 Cr.P.C. Hence, the prayer of quashing the

summon