AMIT JADVANI AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

           APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 16044 of 2026

Amit Jadvani And Another
                                                              .....Applicant(s)
                                   Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                                  .....Opposite
                                                                        Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)      : Abhijeet Mishra, Sr. Advocate, Vivek
                                Chaturvedi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Akash Kumar Sharma, G.A.

Court No. - 77
                 HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Heard Sri Nipun Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Abhijeet
Mishra, learned counsel for applicants and learned AGA for the State.

2. Present application has been preferred with the prayer to quash the
chargesheet dated 24.09.2025 and cognizance/summoning order dated
31.01.2026 along with entire proceedings of Case No.138 of 2026 (State Vs.
Amit Jadvani and others) arising out of Case Crime no. 25 of 2025, under
Sections 316(2), 318(4), 351(2) BNS, P.S.- Expressway, District Gautam
Budh Nagar, pending in the court of learned CJ(SD)FTC/ACJM, Gautam
Budh Nagar.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of applicants has challenged the
impugned chargesheet along with cognizance/summoning order precisely on
the ground that Sections 316(2), 318(4) BNS (406 and 420 in IPC) cannot go
together in the same breath as per the proposition of law settled by Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. and others vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh and another reported in 2024 10 SCC 690. The
relevant portion of the said judgment is being reproduced hereinbelow:-

     "38. In our view, the plain reading of the complaint fails to spell
     out any of the aforesaid ingredients noted above. We may only
     say, with a view to clear a serious misconception of law in the
     mind of the police as well as the courts below, that if it is a case
     of the complainant that offence of criminal breach of trust as
     defined under Section 405 IPC, punishable under Section 406
     IPC, is committed by the accused, then in the same breath it
     cannot be said that the accused has also committed the offence of
     cheating as defined and explained in Section 415 IPC, punishable
                                                       NA528 No. 16044 of 2026
                                2

     under Section 420 IPC.

     41. The distinction between mere breach of contract and the
     offence of criminal breach of trust and cheating is a fine one. In
     case of cheating, the intention of the accused at the time of
     inducement should be looked into which may be judged by a
     subsequent conduct, but for this, the subsequent conduct is not
     the sole test. Mere breach of contract cannot give rise to a
     criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest
     intention is shown right from the beginning of the transaction i.e.
     the time when the offence is said to have been committed.
     Therefore, it is this intention, which is the gist of the offence.

     43. There is a distinction between criminal breach of trust and
     cheating. For cheating, criminal intention is necessary at the time
     of making a false or misleading representation i.e. since
     inception. In criminal breach of trust, mere proof of entrustment
     is sufficient. Thus, in case of criminal breach of trust, the
     offender is lawfully entrusted with the property, and he
     dishonestly misappropriated the same. Whereas, in case of
     cheating, the offender fraudulently or dishonestly induces a
     person by deceiving him to deliver any property. In such a
     situation, both the offences cannot co-exist simultaneously.

     55. It is high time that the police officers across the country are
     imparted proper training in law so as to understand the fine
     distinction between the offence of cheating vis-vis criminal
     breach of trust. Both offences are independent and distinct. The
     two offences cannot coexist simultaneously in the same set of
     facts. They are antithetical to each other. The two provisions of
     IPC (now BNS, 2023) are not twins that they cannot survive
     without each other."

4. Since the arguments as advanced on behalf of learned counsel for
applicants, are based on legal issue, no notice is required to be issued to
opposite party no.2.

5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer
sought through the instant application but unable to dispute the settled
proposition of law as relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for
applicants.

6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record
of the case and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the
                                                                                             NA528 No. 16044 of 2026
                                                                     3

                                    case of Delhi Race Club (Supra), it is crystal clear that both the sections i.e.
                                    Sections 316(2), 318(4) BNS (406 and 420 in IPC) cannot go in the same
                                    breath and as such, cognizance/summoning order dated 31.01.2026 passed in
                                    Case No.138 of 2026 (State Vs. Amit Jadvani and others) arising out of Case
                                    Crime no. 25 of 2025, under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 351(2) BNS, P.S.-
                                    Expressway, District Gautam Budh Nagar, pending in the court of learned
                                    CJ(SD)FTC/ACJM, Gautam Budh Nagar, is quashed. Matter is hereby
                                    remitted back to learned court concerned for passing fresh order of taking
                                    cognizance of offence, if required, in light of the proposition of law settled
                                    by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Race Club (supra).

                                    7. Accordingly, the instant application stands allowed in part.

                                    May 6, 2026
                                    Vivek Kr.
                                                                                         (Saurabh Srivastava,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
VIVEK KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad