Allahabad High Court
NEPAL SINGH AND 2 OTHERSversusState of UPAND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- MADAN PAL SINGH
Holding
The High Court set aside the summoning order as it violated the principle that Sections 420 and 406 IPC are mutually exclusive, and remitted the case for fresh summoning.
Summary
The applicants filed an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash a charge‑sheet dated 13‑06‑2023 and a summoning order dated 17‑08‑2023 issued by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate‑3, Ghaziabad, in a case involving offences under Sections 420, 406 and several other IPC provisions. The applicants contended that no prima facie case existed and that the simultaneous charging of cheating (Sec. 420) and criminal breach of trust (Sec. 406) was impermissible, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024 SCC Online SC 2248). The High Court examined the record, accepted the argument that the two offences are distinct and cannot co‑exist on the same facts, and held that the summoning order was contrary to law. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned summoning order and remitted the matter to the lower court to consider fresh summoning in accordance with law. The application was disposed of on these terms.
Issues considered
- Whether the charge‑sheet and summoning order invoking Sections 420 and 406 IPC can stand together on the same set of facts.
- Whether the High Court can quash the charge‑sheet and summoning order under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the ground of legal infirmity.
- Whether the Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh precedent applies to bar concurrent prosecution for cheating and criminal breach of trust.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 0, 354, 406, 420, 452
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 18475 of 2024
Nepal Singh And 2 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of Upand Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Aushim Luthra, Pranav Tiwary
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Vinay Kumar Singh Chandel
Court No. - 81
HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.
1. On a mention being made on behalf of applicants, the case is being taken
up out of turn.
2. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that counsel for the opposite
party no. 2 has refused to accept the mention slip, which is taken on record.
3. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and
perused the record.
4. This application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been quashing the charge-
sheet dated 13.6.2023 and Summoning Order dated 17.8.2023 passed by
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-3, Ghaziabad as well as entire criminal
proceeding of Case No. 1539 of 2023 (State Vs. Abhishek Solanki and
Others), under sections 420, 406, 452, 354, 354C, 354D, 504, 506, 323 and
307 IPC, Police Station- Sihani Gate, District Nagar (Commissionerte
Ghaziabad), pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-3,
Ghaziabad.
5. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that applicants
are innocent and no prima-facie case is made out against him. It was further
submitted that by impugned order, the applicant summoned for offence
under Sections 420 & 406 IPC and as per law laid down in case of Delhi
Race Club (1940) Ltd. and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and
Another 2024 SCC Online SC 2248, the offence of cheating viz-a-viz
criminal breach of trust are independent and distinct and both cannot exist
simultaneously and on this account alone the impugned summoning order is
liable to be set aside.
A482 No. 18475 of 2024
2
6. Perusal of record shows that by impugned order, the applicants have been
summoned under Sections 420 & 406 I.P.C. as stated above, in case of Delhi
Race Club (supra), it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the
offence of cheating viz-a-viz criminal breach of trust are independent and
distinct and thus, the same cannot exist simultaneously in same set of facts
and that they are antithetical to each other. Thus, it is clear that impugned
order is not in accordance with law.
7. In view of the aforesaid, impugned order dated 17.8.2023 passed by
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-3, Ghaziabad is hereby set aside and
the matter is remitted back to the court concerned to pass an order on the
point of summoning afresh, expeditiously in accordance with law.
8. The instant application is disposed of in above terms.
September 29, 2026
Akbar
(Madan Pal Singh,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
MOHAMMAD AKBAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…