Kamal Kishore Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC29 Jul 2025A482/6143/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Section 482 Cr.P.C. application, the applicant sought quashing of chargesheet alleging cheating and criminal breach of trust arising from a business dispute with alleged financial shortfall. The court noted the force in the applicant's submission relying on Delhi Race Club and issued notice to the State while staying proceedings against the applicant.

What the court decided

AI extract

Kamal Kishore Mishra vs State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Court No. - 29

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6143 of 2025

¶3

Applicant :- Kamal Kishore Mishra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vivek Kumar Rai,Vinayak Pathak Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to quash chargesheet No. 01 of 2023 filed in Criminal Case No. 114710 of 2023, State Vs. Kamal Kishore Mishra, arising out of Case Crime No. 573 of 2022, under Sections 406, 420, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Ghazipur, District Lucknow North (Police Commissionerate), Lucknow and summoning order dated 19.10.2023 passed by Special Chief Judicial Magistrate Custom, Lucknow as well as entire proceedings in pursuance thereof.

¶7

Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the instant case. He next submits that, in fact, there was a business transaction in between the present applicant and the informant and subsequently some dispute arose and for making undue pressure over the applicant, the First Information Report has been lodged and the informant has tried to give a civil dispute to the colour of criminality. He also added that, in fact, the Parcha no.9 appended at page 53 is evident that the applicant had provided Rs.31,65,200/- in the account of informant, whereas the informant had returned back only Rs.18,55,000/- which itself enough to show that still about Rs.13,000,00/- is to be repaid to him and since the informant did not wish to return back the same and, therefore, this FIR is nothing but an arm twisting tact of the informant. He next submits that, in fact, the dispute is purely civil in nature and the matter, if any, may be adjudicated before the court of civil competence.

¶8

In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on Paragraph Nos. 36 and 38 of the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Delhi Race Club (1940) Limited and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

¶9

and Another reported in [(2024) 10 SCC 690] and has referred Paragraph Nos. 36 and 38 which read as under:

¶10

"36. What can be discerned from the above is that the offences of criminal breach of trust (Section 406 IPC) and cheating (Section 420 IPC) have specific ingredients. In order to constitute a criminal breach of trust (Section 406 IPC): -

¶11

There must be entrustment with person for property or dominion over the property, and

¶12

The person entrusted: -

¶13

a) dishonestly misappropriated or converted property to his own use, or

¶14

b) dishonestly used or disposed of the property or willfully suffers any other person so to do in violation of:

¶15

i. any direction of law prescribing the method in which the trust is discharged; or

¶16

ii. legal contract touching the discharge of trust (see: S.W.P. Palanitkar (supra).

¶17

Similarly, in respect of an offence under Section 420 IPC, the essential ingredients are:-

¶18

deception of any person, either by making a false or misleading representation or by other action or by omission;

¶19

fraudulently or dishonestly inducing any person to deliver any property, or

¶20

the consent that any persons shall retain any property and finally intentionally inducing that person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit (see: Harmanpreet Singh Ahluwalia v. State of Punjab)

¶21

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 of IPC, punishable under Section 406 of 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 415 of the IPC, punishable under Section 420 of the IPC."

¶22

Referring the aforesaid, he submits that the case of the present applicant is squarely covered with the ratio of aforesaid judgment. Thus, submission is that the criminal proceedings against the applicant may be quashed.

¶23

On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the State has opposed the contention aforesaid and submits that the allegation for committing cheat and misappropriation of the amount is apparent from the First Information Report itself. He also submits that after thorough investigation, the chargesheet is filed, thus, the applicant is not entitled for any relief.

¶24

Prima facie, this Court finds force in the submission of learned counsel for the applicant, thus, the matter requires consideration.

¶25

Let notice be issued to opposite party no. 2, returnable at an early date.

¶26

Steps be taken within a week.

¶27

List/put up this matter in the first week of September, 2025.

¶28

In the meantime, opposite parties may file their counter affidavits.

¶29

Till then, further proceeding of Criminal Case No. 114710 of 2023, State Vs. Kamal Kishore Mishra, arising out of Case Crime No. 573 of 2022, under Sections 406, 420, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Ghazipur, District Lucknow North (Police Commissionerate), Lucknow, shall remain stayed, so far as the present applicant is concerned.

¶30

Order Date :- 29.7.2025 kkv/

¶31

Digitally signed by :- KRISHAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Kamal Kishore Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Kamal Kishore Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sonu Saini @ Ravi and 4 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 2 Others

Avanish Yadav vs State of U.P.

Smt. Afsari Begum vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Chalaku Paal @ Nanhe Lal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Mohd . Hanif vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko and Another

Subrati vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl .Chief Secy. Home Lko.