GARIMA AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                 APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 35998 of 2026

Garima And 3 Others
                                                             .....Applicant(s)
                                    Versus

State of U.P. and Another
                                                                .....Opposite
                                                                      Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)                     :   Anil Kumar Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)                :   G.A., Jitendra Singh

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

1. Heard learned counsel for applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. Present application has been preferred with the prayer to quash the
cognizance/summoning order dated 01.05.2026 as well as entire
proceedings of Criminal Case No.2235 of 2026, (State vs. Garima and
others) arising out of Case Crime No.864 of 2025, under Sections 318(4),
316(2), 61(2) BNS, P.S. Puwayan, District- Shahjahanpur, pending in the
court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Puwayan, District Shahjahanpur.

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
                                                       NA528 No. 35998 of 2026
                               2


     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. 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.
                                                                                           NA528 No. 35998 of 2026
                                                                   3


                                    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. Sections 420 and 406 IPC cannot go in the same
                                    breath and as such, cognizance/summoning order dated 01.05.2026
                                    passed in Case Crime No.864 of 2025, under Sections 318(4), 316(2),
                                    61(2) BNS, P.S. Puwayan, District- Shahjahanpur, pending in the court of
                                    learned Judicial Magistrate, Puwayan, District Shahjahanpur 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 29, 2026
                                    Ashish/-

                                                                                       (Saurabh Srivastava,J.)




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