MANDHATA PANDEYversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

           APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 17898 of 2026

Mandhata Pandey
                                                              .....Applicant(s)
                                   Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                                  .....Opposite
                                                                        Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)      : Sudarshan Singh, Vivek Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Kamlendra Tripathi, Vinod Kumar
                                Mishra

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

1. This case has been taken up in the mentioned category. Heard learned
counsel for the parties.

2. Present application has been preferred with the prayer to quash the
cognizance/summoning order dated 21.08.2024 as well as entire proceedings
of Criminal Case No.10796 of 2024 (State Vs. Shashi Kant Pandey @ Sonu
and others), arising out of Case Crime no.232 of 2024, under Sections 406,
420 IPC, P.S. Ahraula, District- Azamgarh, pending in the court of learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.13, Azamgarh.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of applicant has challenged the
impugned cognizance/summoning order and entire proceedings of the
present case precisely on the ground that Sections 420 and 406 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
                                                       NA528 No. 17898 of 2026
                               2


     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
     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. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for opposite party
no.2 vehemently opposed the prayer sought through the instant application
but unable to dispute the settled proposition of law as relied upon by the
                                                                                             NA528 No. 17898 of 2026
                                                                     3


                                    learned counsel appearing for applicant.

                                    5. 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
                                    case of Delhi Race Club (Supra), it is crystal clear that both the sections i.e.
                                    Sections 420 and 406 IPC cannot go in the same breath and as such,
                                    cognizance/summoning order dated 21.08.2024 is liable to be set aside.
                                    Although judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Delhi
                                    Race Club (Supra) has been passed on 23.08.2024 and cognizance of
                                    offence in the present case, has been taken on dated 21.08.2024 and as per
                                    the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Kanishk
                                    Sinha and another Vs. The State of West Bengal and another [2025 SCC
                                    Online SC 443], the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court will always be
                                    retrospective in nature unless the judgment itself specifically states that the
                                    judgment will operate prospectively.

                                    6. In view thereof, cognizance/summoning order dated 21.08.2024 passed in
                                    Criminal Case No.10796 of 2024 (State Vs. Shashi Kant Pandey @ Sonu
                                    and others), arising out of Case Crime no.232 of 2024, under Sections 406,
                                    420 IPC, P.S. Ahraula, District- Azamgarh, pending in the court of learned
                                    Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.13, Azamgarh, 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 7, 2026
                                    Saif
                                                                                         (Saurabh Srivastava,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad