Khem Karan Agrawal @ Khem Karan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:142534

Court No. - 77

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 10304 of 2025

Applicant :- Khem Karan Agrawal @ Khem Karan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Madhukar Maurya,Rishabh Agrawal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶7

The instant application has been preferred for quashing the entire proceedings of Case No.1000 of 2024 (State vs. Khem Karan Agrawal) arising out of Case Crime No.239 of 2023, under sections 406 & 420 I.P.C. and section 67a of I.T. Act, P.S. Iglas, District- Aligarh, pending in the court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Aligarh, including charge-sheet dated 12.03.2024 as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 25.07.2024.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that instant proceeding initiated against the applicant is on account of a civil dispute pending between the parties and as per narration of the F.I.R., no criminal offence is made out against the applicant. It is further submitted that a person cannot indulge simultaneously in criminal breach of trust as well as in cheating and as such proceedings under sections 406 and 420 I.P.C. cannot co-exit simultaneously against the applicant. For substantiating his submission, learned counsel for applicant relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. vs. State of U.P., AIR 2024 SC 4531 , wherein para-30 clearly highlights the same issue :-

¶9

"30. The distinction between mere breach of contract and the offence of 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. Whereas, for the criminal breach of trust, the property must have been entrusted to the accused or he must have dominion over it.

¶10

The property in respect of which the offence of breach of trust has been committed must be either the property of some person other than the accused or the beneficial interest in or ownership' of it must be of some other person. The accused must hold that property on trust of such other person. Although the offence, i.e. the offence of breach of trust and cheating involve dishonest intention, yet they are mutually exclusive and different in basic concept. 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."

¶11

So far as section 67a of I.T. Act is concerned, learned counsel for applicant submitted that as per narration of F.I.R and the materials available on record, the same cannot be made against the applicant.

¶12

Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer as made in the application, but did not dispute the arguments as raised by learned counsel for applicant.

¶13

After hearing rival submissions extended by learned counsel for the parties as well as considering the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Delhi Race Club (supra) , the arguments raised by learned counsel for applicant seems to be justified.

¶14

In view of aforementioned facts and circumstances, the entire proceedings initiated against the applicant in shape of Case No.1000 of 2024 (State vs. Khem Karan Agrawal) arising out of Case Crime No.239 of 2023, under sections 406 & 420 I.P.C. and section 67a of I.T. Act, P.S. Iglas, District- Aligarh, pending in the court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Aligarh, including charge-sheet dated 12.03.2024 as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 25.07.2024, are hereby quashed.

¶15

The instant application stands allowed accordingly.

¶16

Order Date :- 19.8.2025 Saif

¶17

Digitally signed by :- SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Khem Karan Agrawal @ Khem Karan v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khem Karan Agrawal @ Khem Karan v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases