Partly allowed

Sanjay Kumar Tripathi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Allahabad HC13 Dec 2024A482/11374/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In miscellaneous application u/s 482 CrPC, applicant sought quashing of charge sheet and summoning order alleging mechanical filing of cheating and breach of trust offences. Court noted settled bar on joint trial of Sections 420 and 406 IPC and stayed proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Impugned proceedings stayed; notice issued to respondent no. 2; case listed for hearing in February 2025.

Sanjay Kumar Tripathi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 13

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11374 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Tripathi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

The present application has been filed with a prayer to quash the charge sheet dated 06.08.2022 as well as summoning order dated 05.07.2023 passed in Criminal Case No. 74540 of 2023 arising out of F.I.R. No. 24 of 2022, under Sections 420, 406 I.P.C., P.S. Gazipur, District Lucknow.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case only for the reason the applicant had demanded his salary from the private respondent no. 2. It is further submitted that the Investigating Officer has filed the charge sheet in mechanical manner for the offences of cheating as well criminal breach of trust. Relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Delhi Race Club & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2248 , learned counsel for the applicant vehemently submits that both the offences cannot run together before the trial court. It is, thus, submitted that the indulgence of this Court is necessary.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. opposes the prayer of the applicant, but he does not dispute the legal argument advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶9

Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and going through the contents of the applicant as well as other relevant

¶10

documents, it is well settled that for the offences under Sections 420 and 406 I.P.C. cannot be tried together.

¶11