Dismissed¶8

Jitendra Alias Jeetu Patel v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC12 Oct 2025NA528/26532/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 528 BNSS; delay and laches; reasonable time; quashing of chargesheet and cognizance/summoning order; Sections 420 and 406 IPC cannot coexist; Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. (2024) 10 SCC 690; Case Crime No. 0809 of 2018; CJM Bareilly; PS Izzatnagar; application dismissed as highly belated; liberty to pursue alternate remedy.

What did the court decide?

None on the quashing prayer; applicant given liberty to take recourse to the alternate remedy, if available under the law. ¶8

Jitendra Alias Jeetu Patel Vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None on the quashing prayer; applicant given liberty to take recourse to the alternate remedy, if available under the law.

¶8

Issue for consideration

Whether the chargesheet dated 17.3.2020, the cognizance/summoning order dated 28.10.2020 and the entire proceedings in Case Crime No. 0809 of 2018 are liable to be quashed. +2 more

¶2

Ratio / Principle

Although no period of limitation is prescribed, a petition under Section 528 BNSS must be filed within a reasonable time and must not be vitiated by inordinate delay and laches on the part of the applicant; a party cannot approach the High Court at whim and caprice.

¶5

Key takeaways

What time is reasonable for approaching the Court under Section 528 BNSS depends on the facts and circumstances of each case; reasonable time means time which is not manifestly unreasonable and which is fairly necessary for approaching the Court.ratio¶6
On the facts, the applicant approached the Court at a highly belated stage, about five years after the impugned order, without any explanation for the delay, and therefore did not approach within a reasonable time; the Court was reluctant to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS.ratio¶7

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Saurabh Srivastava, J.) dismissed an application under Section 528 BNSS (No. 26532 of 2025) seeking quashing of a chargesheet dated 17.3.2020 and cognizance/summoning order dated 28.10.2020 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly in Case Crime No. 0809 of 2018 under Sections 420, 406, 506 IPC, PS Izzatnagar. Although the applicant relied on Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. v. State of U.P., (2024) 10 SCC 690, to contend that cheating (S.420 IPC) and criminal breach of trust (S.406 IPC) cannot coexist, the Court did not adjudicate that question. Dismissal rested solely on delay and laches: the challenge was mounted about five years after the impugned order without any explanation. Holding that, absent a statutory limitation, a petition under Section 528 BNSS must still be filed within a reasonable time, that reasonable time is fact-dependent and means time not manifestly unreasonable and fairly necessary for approaching the Court, and that a litigant cannot approach at whim and caprice, the Court found the delay inordinate, declined to exercise its jurisdiction, dismissed the application, and left the applicant free to pursue any alternate remedy.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 26532 of 2025

¶3

Jitendra Alias Jeetu Patel

¶4

	Versus	.....Applicant(s)
State of U.P. and Another		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	:	Shailendra Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	:	G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 77

¶6

HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned AGA for the State.

¶8

Present application has been preferred with the prayer to quash the chargesheet dated 17.3.2020 and cognizance as well as summoning order dated 28.10.2020 taken by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly arising out of Case Crime no. 0809 of 2018 under sections 420, 406, 506 IPC, PSIzzatnagar, District Bareilly, pending in court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly.

¶9

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of applicant has challenged the impugned chargesheet along with cognizance/summoning order and entire proceedings of the present case precisely on the ground that 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

¶11

NA528 No. 26532 of 2025

¶12

¶13

of cheating as defined and explained in Section 415 IPC, punishable under Section 420 IPC.

¶14

41. 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.

¶15

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.

¶16

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."

¶17

Although, learned A.G.A. did not dispute the settled proposition of law as relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for applicant but vehemently opposed the prayer sought through the instant petition by way of submitting that cognizance order impugned is of the year 2020 and the same has been challenged through the instant application after about five years without explaining the delay and latches and as such, the same may be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches.

¶18

NA528 No. 26532 of 2025

¶19

¶20

After hearing the rival submissions extended by learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it transpires that in the present matter, chargesheet was filed in the year 2020 whereupon cognizance was also taken in the year 2020 and now the same has been challenged through the instant application after about five years without explaining the delay and if the Court fails to take into consideration delay and latches while invoking the powers of the High Court under Section 528 BNSS without any reasonable ground, there would be no end to the litigation. A party cannot approach the High Court under Section 528 BNSS at his whim and caprice merely because no period of limitation in filing the petition under the aforesaid provision is provided. A petition under Section 528 BNSS must be filed within a reasonable time and it should not be vitiated by inordinate delay and latches on the part of applicant.

¶21

Within what time a person should approach the Court under Section 528 BNSS depends upon the facts and circumstances of the case. Reasonable time generally means any time which is not manifestly unreasonable and which is fairly necessary for approaching the Court. Reasonable time would mean a time required by a prudent litigant to approach the Court in the given facts and circumstances of the case.

¶22

Analyzing the facts of the instant case in the backdrop of aforesaid position, it is absolutely clear that applicant has approached this Court at a highly belated stage i.e. after about five years of passing the order impugned. The applicant after awaking up from deep slumber, approached this Court without any iota of explanation for the delay as per his choice. Thus, it can by no stretch of imagination be stated that the applicant has approached this Court within a reasonable time. The applicant wants this Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS, which, in the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court would be reluctant to do.

¶23

In view thereof, the instant application stands dismissed being highly belated. Applicant is, however, at liberty to take recourse to the alternate remedy, if available under the law.

¶24

(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)

¶25

October 13, 2025 Shaswat

¶26

Digitally signed by :- SHASWAT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Jitendra Alias Jeetu Patel v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitendra Alias Jeetu Patel 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