SADHNA DIXITversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

           APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 19810 of 2026

Sadhna Dixit
                                                                    .....Applicant(s)
                                      Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                                        .....Opposite
                                                                              Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)                             :     Saurabh Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)                        :     G.A.

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

1. This case has been taken up in the mentioned category. Heard learned
counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. Present application has been preferred with the prayer to quash the
charge-sheet dated 03.11.2023 & 30.05.2024 and cognizance/summoning
order dated 23.12.2024 and corrected order dated 01.04.2026 as well as
entire proceedings of Case No.4196 of 2024 (State vs. Naveen Srivastava
and Others) arising out of Case Crime No.59 of 2023, under Sections 406,
420 IPC, P.S. Kotwali, District- Kanpur Nagar, pending in the court of
learned Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Kanpur Nagar.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of applicant has challenged the
impugned charge-sheet along with 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 IPC, is committed by the accused, then in the same
     breath it cannot be said that the accused has also committed the offence
                                                              NA528 No. 19810 of 2026
                                   2

     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. 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
applicant.

5. Since the legal issue has been raised by learned counsel for the applicants
and as such process to issue notice to opposite party no.2 is hereby dispensed
with.

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
case of Delhi Race Club (Supra), it is crystal clear that both the sections i.e.
                                                                                           NA528 No. 19810 of 2026
                                                                    3


                                    Sections 420 and 406 IPC cannot go in the same breath and as
                                    such, cognizance/summoning order dated 23.12.2024 along with corrected
                                    order dated 01.04.2026 passed in Case No.4196 of 2024 (State vs. Naveen
                                    Srivastava and Others) arising out of Case Crime No.59 of 2023, under
                                    Sections 406, 420 IPC, P.S. Kotwali, District- Kanpur Nagar, pending in the
                                    court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Kanpur Nagar, is hereby
                                    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 14, 2026
                                    Saif
                                                                                        (Saurabh Srivastava,J.)




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