AMIT BAGHELversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

           APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 38299 of 2026

Amit Baghel
                                                              .....Applicant(s)
                                   Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                                  .....Opposite
                                                                        Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)                      :    Raj Kishor Mishra
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 01.10.2024 and cognizance/summoning order dated
06.12.2024 as well as entire proceedings of Case No.23786 of 2024 (State
vs. Akhilesh @ Akhilesh Yadav and Others) arising out of Case Crime
No.350 of 2024, under Sections 318(4), 316(2) BNS, P.S. Trans Yamuna,
District- Agra, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Court No.8, 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 318(4)
& 316(2) BNS, i.e., (sections 420 & 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. 38299 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
applicant.
                                                                                           NA528 No. 38299 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
                                    318(4) & 316(2) BNS, i.e., (sections 420 & 406 IPC) cannot go in the same
                                    breath and as such, cognizance/summoning order dated 06.12.2024 passed
                                    in Case No.23786 of 2024 (State vs. Akhilesh @ Akhilesh Yadav and
                                    Others) arising out of Case Crime No.350 of 2024, under Sections 318(4),
                                    316(2) BNS, P.S. Trans Yamuna, District- Agra, pending in the court of
                                    learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.8, Agra, is hereby
                                    quashed, in respect of applicant(s) herein. 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
                                    Saif
                                                                                        (Saurabh Srivastava,J.)




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