VIPIN KUMAR HARIT AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

           APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 36909 of 2026

Vipin Kumar Harit And 2 Others
                                                              .....Applicant(s)
                                   Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                                  .....Opposite
                                                                        Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)           :   Santosh Singh, Vijay Chand Yadav
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
charge-sheet dated 12.08.2024 and cognizance/summoning order dated
11.07.2025 as well as entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.638 of 2025
(State vs. Sanjeev Kumar and others) arising out of Case Crime No.45 of
2024, under Sections 406, 420 IPC, P.S. Niwadi, District Ghaziabad,
pending in the court of learned Additional Civil Judge (J.D.), J.M. Court
No.3, Ghaziabad.

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. 36909 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. 36909 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 11.07.2025 passed in Criminal Case
                                    No.638 of 2025 (State vs. Sanjeev Kumar and others) arising out of Case
                                    Crime No.45 of 2024, under Sections 406, 420 IPC, P.S. Niwadi, District
                                    Ghaziabad, pending in the court of learned Additional Civil Judge (J.D.),
                                    J.M. Court No.3, Ghaziabad 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 11, 2026
                                    Ashish/-
                                                                                         (Saurabh Srivastava,J.)




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