ABHIJEET GAUTAM @ AMIT GAUTAM AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

           APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 34999 of 2026

Abhijeet Gautam @ Amit Gautam And 2 Others
                                                              .....Applicant(s)
                                   Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                                  .....Opposite
                                                                        Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)         : Saurabh Tripathi, Sohit Prakash Sharma
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)    : G.A.

Court No. - 79
                 HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. 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
cognizance/summoning order dated 04.04.2026 as well as entire proceedings
of Criminal Case No.02 of 2026, (Jitendra Kumar Gautam Vs. Abhijeet
Gautam and others) arising out of Case Crime No.383 of 2024, under
Sections 406, 420, 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Khandauli, District Agra,
pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court
No.9, Agra.

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 of
     cheating as defined and explained in Section 415 IPC, punishable
                                                       NA528 No. 34999 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. 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
                                                                                             NA528 No. 34999 of 2026
                                                                     3

                                    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 04.04.2026 passed in Criminal Case
                                    No.02 of 2026, (Jitendra Kumar Gautam Vs. Abhijeet Gautam and others)
                                    arising out of Case Crime No.383 of 2024, under Sections 406, 420, 452,
                                    323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Khandauli, District Agra, pending in the court of
                                    learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.9, Agra 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.

                                    September 9, 2026
                                    Ashish/-
                                                                                         (Saurabh Srivastava,J.)




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