Allowed

Paresh Ranjeet Nagandhi v. the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Ministry of Home, Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC18 Apr 2025NA528/305/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 482 Cr.P.C. / Section 528 BNSS quashing application; summoning order quashed; Sections 406 and 420 IPC cannot be imposed simultaneously; cheating vs criminal breach of trust distinction; non-application of mind by summoning magistrate; Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2024) 10 SCC 690 paras 41-43 relied upon; matter remitted for fresh order; Shrawasti magistracy; All

What did the court decide?

Summoning order dated 18.01.2025 under Sections 406, 417, 419, 420 IPC quashed; matter remitted to the trial court to pass a fresh order; application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. (captioned under s.528 BNSS) final

Paresh Ranjeet Nagandhi Vs the State of U.P. Thru… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:21983

¶2

Court No. - 19

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 305 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Paresh Ranjeet Nagandhi Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Ministry Of Home, Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Surya Narayan Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Rajeiu Kumar Tripathi, who has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no.2, which is taken on record.

¶7

Sri Rajeiu Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 states that he does not propose to file counter affidavit and the matter may be disposed of at this stage.

¶8

The applicant by means the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has assailed the order dated 18.01.2025 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) (FTC)/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shrawasti whereby he has issued summoning order against the applicant under Sections 406, 417, 419, 420 IPC.

¶9

A short contention has been advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that it has been settled by the Apex Court in the case of Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. & Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, reported in (2024) 10 SCC 690 that the two sections i.e. 406 and 420 IPC cannot be imposed simultaneously. The Hon'ble Apex Court in paras 41 to 43 has made distinction between the criminal breach of trust and deception. Paras 41 to 43 are reproduced herein below:-

¶10

"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 I ndian Penal Code (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.

¶11

42. When dealing with a private complaint, the law enjoins upon the

¶12

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

¶13

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."

¶14

Learned counsel for the respondent does not dispute the aforesaid proposition of law.

¶15

Thus, it is evident that the trial court while issuing summoning order did not apply its mind properly.

¶16

In such view of the fact, the summoning order dated 18.01.2025 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) (FTC)/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shrawasti is quashed and the matter is remitted back to the trial court to pass fresh order.

¶17

With the aforesaid observations, the application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is finally disposed off.

¶18

Order Date :- 18.4.2025 Renu/-

¶19

Digitally signed by :- RENU AGARWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Paresh Ranjeet Nagandhi v. the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Ministry of Home, Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Paresh Ranjeet Nagandhi v. the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Ministry of Home, Lko. 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

Durga Prasad and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Rekha Devi Vs the State of U.P and Anr.

Baljindar Kaur and Ors. Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. U.P. Lko and Anr.

Om Prakash @ Om Prakash Sahu and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and 2 Others

Shivansh Pratap Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Archana Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Civil Sectt. Lko. and Another