Remanded

Gurpreet Singh Bhogal and Another v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC29 Aug 2024A482/12939/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court set aside a summons order dated 04.01.2024 under Sections 452, 406, 420 etc. IPC, holding it was unreasoned and violated Supreme Court precedent distinguishing cheating from criminal breach of trust. The matter was remitted to pass a fresh order after hearing.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 04.01.2024 is set aside and matter remitted to pass a fresh order within three months.

Gurpreet Singh Bhogal and Another vs State of Up and… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:149645

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 12939 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Gurpreet Singh Bhogal And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ashish Rai,Om Prakash Rai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

¶6

In the present case, the best argument for applicants would be that, in given set of circumstances, offences under Sections 406 and 420 I.P.C. may not go simultaneously, however, the said argument is neither mentioned in application nor stated by Sri Om Prakash Rai, learned counsel for applicants.

¶7

Since the applicants have approached this Court to invoke inherent jurisdiction, the Court takes note of impugned order and finds that summoning order is unreasoned as well as it is in the teeth of judgment passed by Supreme Court in case of Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Anr., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2248. For reference relevant paragraphs thereof are reproduced hereinafter :-

¶8

"41. Before we close this matter, we would like to say something as regards the casual approach of the courts below in cases like the one at hand. The Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) was the official Criminal Code in the Republic of India inherited from the British India after independence. The IPC came into force in the sub-continent during the British rule in 1862. The IPC remained in force for almost a period of 162 years until it was repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita ("BNS") in December 2023 which came into effect on 1st July 2024. It is indeed very sad to note that even after these many years, the courts have not been able to understand the fine distinction between criminal breach of trust and cheating.

¶9

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

¶10

breach of trust and cheating on a mere allegation of some dishonesty or fraud, without any proper application of mind.

¶11

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."

¶12

The Court also takes note other submissions of counsel for applicants that dispute is essentially arising out of a Builders and Buyers Agreement and in case, there is any violation of condition, the appropriate remedy is to approach the Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority. The relevant part of impugned order is reproduced hereinafter :-

¶13

" पररिववाददी व पररिववाददी कके सवाकदीगण दवारिवा पररिववाद पत्र कवा वरणरत घटनवा एववं घटनवाक्रम रबिनवा रकसदी रवरिरोधवाभवास कके समररन शपरदीय रूप सके न्यवायवालय कके समक रकयवा गयवा हहै। पत्रवावलदी परि उपलब्ध ममौखखिक सवाक्ष्य सके पररिववाद पत्र मम उरल्लिखखित रवपकदीगण दवारिवा पररिववाददी सके सवाहनदी रबिहवारि ककॉलरोनदी मम एक फ्लहैट बिनववाकरि रदयके जवानके कवा ववादवा रकयवा गयवा , खजसकके एवज मम पररिववाददी सके 10 लवाखि रूपयके एडववास कके तमौरि परि रवपकदीगण नके पवाप्त रकयके। फ्लहैट बिनवाकरि रदयके जवानके कवा समय 3 वरर तय हहआ रवा एववं रवपकदीगण दवारिवा यह भदी तय हहआ रवा रक यरद 3 वरर मम फ्लहैट कवा रनमवारण पपूणर नहहीं हरोतवा हहै तरो पररिववाददी करो दरोगगुनदी रिकम ववापस ककी जवायकेगदी। रवपकदीगण दवारिवा ककेवल एक लवाखि रूपयके ववापस रदयवा गयवा। पररिववाददी दवारिवा शकेर 9 लवाखि रूपयके ववापस मवावंगनके परि रवपकदीगण नके पररिववाददी कके घरि मम घगुसकरि उसकके सवार लवात - घपूवंसरो सके मवारि - पदीट ककी एववं गवालदी - गलमौज करि जवान सके मरिनके ककी धमककी दकेनके ककी पगुरष्टि हरोतदी हहै। पररिववाद करवानक कके तवाततवक रबिवंदगु अरभलकेखिखों सके भदी सम्पगुष्टि हरोतके हहै। उपरिरोक्त सम्पकेरण कके आलरोक मम पररिववाद पत्र व पररिववाददी कके सवाकदीगण तवाततवक रबिवंदगुओवं मम समवानतवा व मत एकतवा करो दृरष्टिगत रिखितके हहए इस स्तरि रवपकदीगण गगुरिपदीत खसवंह तरवा बिलववंत खसवंह दवारिवा रवश्ववासघवात करि न्यवास भवंग करिनके , गलत तथ्य पकट करि पहैसके लेरि छल करिनके क , गवालदी - गलमौज करि अपमवारनत करिनके , मवारि - पदीट करि उपहवारत कवाररित करिनके तरवा जवान सके मवारिनके ककी धमककी देरि आपरिवाखधक क अरभत्रवास कवाररित रकयवा जवानवा पतदीत हरोतवा हहै। अततः अरभयगुक्तगण उपरिरोक्त पररिववाद कके दमौरिवान अपरिवाध अवंतगरत धवारिवा 452,406, 420, 323, 504, 506 भवा०दवं०सवं० रवचवारिण हकेतगु तलबि रकयके जवानके यरोग्य हहै।

¶14

आदकेश

¶15

अरभयगुक्तगण गगुरिपदीत खसवंह तरवा बिलववंत खसवंह करो अवंतगरत धवारिवा 452,406,420,323,504,506 रवचवारिण हकेतगु तलबि रकयवा जवातवा हहै। पररिववाददी रनयमवानगुसवारि पहैरिवदी अवंदरि सप्तवाह करिनवा सगुरनतश्चत करिम। पत्रवावलदी ववास्तके हवाखजरिदी रदनवावंक - 01.02.2024 करो पकेश हरो। "

¶16

In the aforesaid circumstances, since in given set of circumstances, offence under Sections 406 and 420 I.P.C. may not go simultaneously as well as considering the above circumstances, that dispute appears to be a civil dispute, therefore, impugned order dated 04.01.2024 passed in Complaint Case No.13166 of 2023 under Sections 452, 406, 420, 323, 504, 506, I.P.C., Police Station- Shipri Bazar, District- Jhansi is set aside and since this order is passed without issuing notice to opposite party No.2, therefore, matter is remitted back to pass fresh order within period of three months after hearing the complainant only.

¶17

Accordingly, application is disposed of with aforesaid observation.

¶18

Registrar (Compliance) to take steps.

¶19

Order Date :- 13.9.2024 P. Pandey

¶20

Digitally signed by :- PUSHPENDRA PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Gurpreet Singh Bhogal and Another v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurpreet Singh Bhogal and Another v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mangal Basoai and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Mitendra Gupta and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajeev Agarwal and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Jay Prakash Yadav and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Naresh Bahadur vs State of U.P. and Another

Mukesh and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another