Allahabad High Court
PARAS NATH PATEL @ PARAS NATHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
Holding
The court held that the appellant’s plea on the sustainability of the offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC must be considered at the charge‑framing stage, and directed the trial court to examine and decide accordingly.
Summary
Paras Nath Patel appealed to the Allahabad High Court under Section 14‑A(1) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act seeking to quash the trial court’s cognizance order, non‑bailable warrant and charge sheet in a case that alleged offences under IPC Sections 419, 420, 406, 504 and SC/ST Act Sections 3(1)(d), 3(1)(4) and 3(2)(Va). The appellant argued that the trial court illegally took cognizance of both Sections 406 and 420 IPC together, relying on the Delhi Race Club case. The State contended that the two offences are distinct and can be prosecuted simultaneously. The High Court held that the appellant’s contention about the sustainability of the two charges should be examined at the stage of framing of charges, directing the trial court to decide whether to frame charges under one or both sections. The appeal was thereafter disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether cognizance can be taken simultaneously for offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC in the same proceeding.
- Whether the cognizance order, warrant and charge sheet can be quashed on the ground of improper joinder of offences.
- At what stage should the appellant’s plea regarding the sustainability of both offences be considered?
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 406, 419, 420, 504
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14-A(1), 3(1)(4), 3(1)(d), 3(2)(Va)
Subjects
- Criminal Procedure
- IPC Section 406
- IPC Section 420
- SC/ST Act
- Cognizance
- Charge Framing
- Appeal
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2558 of 2026
Paras Nath Patel @ Paras Nath
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) : Anoop Kumar, Rajesh Kumar Patel
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Swarn Lata Suman, G.A.
Court No. - 51
HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the
respondent no. 2 and Sri Acharya Rajesh Tripathi, learned A.G.A for the
State as also perused the record.
2. The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(1) Scheduled Castes &
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred to allow
the present criminal appeal and to quash the cognizance/summoning order
dated 07.12.2024 well as non bailable warrant dated 18.02.2026 and charge
sheet dated 21.11.2024 and the entire proceeding of Session Case No. 1127
of 2024 (State Vs. Paras Nath Patel) arising out of Case Crime No. 434 of
2024 Under Section 419, 420, 406, 504 I.P.C. and Section 3 (1) (द), 3(1)(4)
and 3(2) (Va) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Sarnath, District Varanasi.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned trial court has
taken cognizance against him simultaneously for offences under Sections
406 and 420 IPC. Hence, the impugned order taking cognizance against the
appellant for both offences is illegal and liable to be set aside. In support of
his contention, he has relied upon the judgment in Delhi Race Club (1940)
Limited and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, (2024) 10
SCC 690.
4. Learned AGA and learned counsel for the informant submitted that
offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC are entirely different. However, it
is not always the case that both sections cannot be invoked simultaneously.
There may be circumstances where different transactions, carried out in
different manners, take place as part of the incident. Such different
transactions may result in the commission of different offences. Hence, it
cannot be submitted at this stage that offences under both sections against
CRLA No. 2558 of 2026
2
the appellant are not sustainable.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Learned
counsel for the appellant has conceded to the fact that charges in the case
have not yet been framed. In light of the submissions, this Court is of the
view that the plea of the appellant that both offences are not sustainable
against him can be raised at the time of framing of charges. The learned trial
court is also directed to consider the plea of the appellant at the time of
framing of charges. The learned trial court shall examine the allegations
against the appellant and then decide whether charges against him could be
framed either under Section 406 or Section 420 IPC, or under both sections.
6. The appeal is disposed of.
March 19, 2026
Ujjawal
(Anil Kumar-X,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
UJJAWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…