AMIT SOAMversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                 APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 36030 of 2026

Amit Soam
                                                             .....Applicant(s)
                                    Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s)      : Anup Kumar            Chaubey,     Satyendra
                                Narayan Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

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

1. Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned AGA for the State.

2. Present application has been preferred with the prayer to quash the
chargesheet dated 02.06.2023 and cognizance/summoning order dated
22.01.2024 as well as entire proceedings of Case Crime No.412 of 2023
(State Vs. Amit), under Sections 420, 406 IPC, P.S.- Indrapuram, District
Ghaziabad, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Ghaziabad.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of applicant has challenged the
impugned chargesheet 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
                                                       NA528 No. 36030 of 2026
                               2


    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. 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
                                                                                         NA528 No. 36030 of 2026
                                                                   3


                                    applicant.

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

                                    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 22.01.2024 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 22.01.2024 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.

                                    7. In view thereof, cognizance/summoning order dated 22.01.2024 passed
                                    in Case Crime No.412 of 2023 (State Vs. Amit), under Sections 420, 406
                                    IPC, P.S.- Indrapuram, District Ghaziabad, pending in the court of learned
                                    Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad, is set aside. 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).

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



                                                                                      (Saurabh Srivastava,J.)
                                    September 8, 2026
                                    Vivek Kr.




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