Smt. Ragni Jha @ Smt. Ragani Jha and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Allahabad HC7 Jul 2025A482/4218/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application to quash a charge sheet and summoning order in a case under Sections 420 and 406 IPC, arguing the two offences cannot coexist per Supreme Court precedent. Court issued notice, sought service report, listed for July 2025, and restrained coercive action meanwhile.

What did the court decide?

Interim: no coercive action against applicants till next date of listing.

Smt. Ragni Jha @ Smt. Ragani Jha and Another vs State of… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Court No. - 14

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4218 of 2025

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Ragni Jha @ Smt. Ragani Jha And Another

¶4

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Priyanka Dube,Ratnesh Tripathi,Vikrant Prakash

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶7

Present application has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C./528 B.N.S.S. with following main prayers:-

¶8

"I. Set aside the impugned charge sheet dated 27.09.2022 annexed as Annexure No. 2 whereby applicants have been summoned the summoning order dated 19.12.2022 annexed as Annexure No. 3 to instant application and all subsequent criminal proceedings arising out of the same are liable to be quashed which have been drawn against the Applicants in criminal case 'State vs. Smt. Ragani Jha and Ors" u/s 420, 406 of the Indian Penal Code; Arising out of F.I.R. No. 0233/2022 of pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No. 29, District Lucknow."

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that an FIR dated 03.07.2022 has been lodged by the respondent no. 2 against the applicants under Sections 420 & 406 IPC. The police after investigation has filed the charge sheet under Sections 420 and 406 IPC under which the FIR was lodged. It is further submitted that the court concerned has taken cognizance and issued summoning order without application of mind as 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:-

¶10

"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 415IPC, punishable under Section 420 IPC.

¶11

41. The distinction between mere breach of contract and the offence of

¶12

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.

¶13

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.

¶14

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."

¶15

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the application but unable to dispute the settled proposition of law as relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicants i.e. the Section 406 I.P.C and Section 420 I.P.C cannot be proceeded with simultaneously.

¶16

The matter requires consideration.

¶17

Issue notice to the respondent nos. 2.

¶18

Steps be taken within seven working days.

¶19

List this case in the second week of July, 2025.

¶20

Office is directed to submit service report by the next date of listing.

¶21

Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants.