Allahabad High Court

KUVAR ANSHUMAN PAL AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 23 September 2026
Bench: DEEPAK VERMA

Holding

The court held that sections 406 and 420 IPC cannot be instituted together on the same facts, and the trial court’s cognizance order was vitiated for lack of judicial mind, warranting its quash.

Summary

The applicants filed an application under section 528 of the BNSS seeking to quash the cognizance and summoning order dated 26‑10‑2022 in a complaint case filed under sections 406, 417 and 420 of the IPC. They contended that they were falsely implicated and that the trial court had not applied any judicial mind while issuing the order. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., the court held that the offences of cheating and criminal breach of trust are distinct and cannot coexist on the same facts, rendering the joint prosecution under sections 406 and 420 impermissible. The High Court agreed that the lower court’s order was passed without proper consideration and consequently quashed the order. The matter was remanded to the trial court to pass a fresh order after hearing both parties, in line with the Supreme Court precedent. The application under section 528 BNSS was therefore allowed.

Issues considered

Can sections 406, 417 and 420 IPC be concurrently applied to the same set of facts?
Did the trial court exercise judicial mind while issuing the cognizance/summoning order in a private complaint?
Is an application under section 528 BNSS for quash of criminal proceedings maintainable?

Legislation cited

BNSS — s. 528
Indian Penal Code — s. 406, 417, 420

Subjects

quash of criminal proceedings
section 528 BNSS
IPC sections 406 417 420
cheating
criminal breach of trust
judicial mind
Supreme Court precedent

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 40984 of 2026

Kuvar Anshuman Pal And Another
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Chandra Kant Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 74
HON'BLE DEEPAK VERMA, J.

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

2. The present application u/s 528 BNSS has been filed with prayer to quash the entire
proceedings of Complaint Case no.16457/2021 (Ramsingh Vs. Kuvar Anshuman Pal
and Another), under section 406, 417, 420 I.P.C., Police Station- Mahuli, District-
Sant Kabir Nagar, Naga, pending in the court of Civil Judge (J.D.)/ F.T.C.-I (J.M.),
Sant Kabir Nagar, as well as summoning order dated 26.10.2022.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicants are innocent and have
been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned court below has passed the
cognizance order/summoning order without application of judicial mind. It is next
submitted that proceedings under Sections 420 and 406 I.P.C. cannot run jointly in
view of the judgment of Apex Court in Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. vs. The State of
Uttar Pradesh & Anr., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2248, the Apex Court has held in para
42 and 43, which are quoted herein below:

"42. When dealing with a private complaint, the law enjoins upon the magistrate a
duty to meticulously examine the contents of the complaint so as to determine whether
the offence of cheating or criminal breach of trust as the case may be is made out from
the averments made in the complaint. The magistrate must carefully apply its mind to
ascertain whether the allegations, as stated, genuinely constitute these specific
offences. In contrast, when a case arises from a FIR, this responsibility is of the police
? to thoroughly ascertain whether the allegations levelled by the informant indeed
falls under the category of cheating or criminal breach of trust. Unfortunately, it has
become a common practice for the police officers to routinely and mechanically
proceed to register an FIR for both the offences i.e. criminal breach of trust and
cheating on a mere allegation of some dishonesty or fraud, without any proper
application of mind.
NA528 No. 40984 of 2026
2

43. 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
viz-a-viz 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 the IPC (now BNS, 2023) are not twins that they
cannot survive without each other."

4. Considering the argument raised by applicants' counsel and in view of judgment
passed by Hon'ble The Apex Court in the case of Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd.,
cognizance/summoning order dated 26.10.2022 passed by learned trial court, is
without application of judicial mind.

5. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 26.10.2022, passed in Complaint Case
no.16457/2021 (Ramsingh Vs. Kuvar Anshuman Pal and Another), under section 406,
417, 420 I.P.C., Police Station- Mahuli, District- Sant Kabir Nagar, Naga, pending in
the court of Civil Judge (J.D.)/ F.T.C.-I (J.M.), Sant Kabir Nagar, is hereby quashed.

6. The matter is remanded back to learned trial court with direction that learned trial
court shall pass an appropriate order, after hearing both the parties, within a month
from the date of production of certified copy of this order keeping in view the order of
Hon'ble The Apex Court passed in the case of Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. vs. The
State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

7. With aforesaid direction, the present application under Section 528 BNSS is
accordingly allowed.

September 24, 2026
Nitin Verma
(Deepak Verma,J.)

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…