Partly allowed

Vikash Sharma Alias Vishal Sharma v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC17 Nov 2025NA528/31389/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court applied a Supreme Court precedent holding that cheating (S. 420 IPC) and criminal breach of trust (S. 406 IPC) cannot co-exist. The court quashed the cognizance order against the applicant, remitting the matter for fresh order on taking cognizance.

What did the court decide?

The cognizance/summoning order dated 28.8.2024 under Sections 420 and 406 IPC is quashed only in respect of the applicant.

Vikash Sharma Alias Vishal Sharma vs State of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 31389 of 2025

¶3

Vikash Sharma Alias Vishal Sharma

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

	Versus
State of U.P. and Another	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Bindeshwari Prasad Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 77

¶7

HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

¶8

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

¶9

Present application has been preferred with the prayer to quash the charge sheet dated 24.8.2024 as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 28.8.2024 arising out of Case Crime no. 579 of 2024 under sections 420, 406, 506, 120B IPC, PS- Highway, District Mathura.

¶10

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:-

¶11

"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 415 IPC, punishable under Section 420 IPC.

¶12

NA528 No. 31389 of 2025

¶13

¶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

On the other hand, learned AGA for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer sought through the instant application but unable to dispute the settled proposition of law as relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for applicants.

¶18

Since, only legal argument has been raised at the behest of applicant, process to issue notice to opposite party no. 2 is hereby dispensed with.

¶19

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record of the case and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the

¶20

NA528 No. 31389 of 2025

¶21

¶22

case of Delhi Race Club (Supra) , it is crystal clear that both the sections i.e. Sections 420 and 406 IPC cannot go in the same breath and as such without interfering in any other merit of the present matter, cognizance/summoning order dated 28.8.2024 passed by learned In-charge Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathura in Case Crime no. 579 of 2024 under sections 420, 406, 506, 120B IPC, PS- Highway, District Mathura, is quashed only in respect of applicant(s) herein. Matter is hereby remitted back to learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathura for passing fresh order of taking cognizance of offence, if required, in light of the proposition of law settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Race Club (supra).

¶23

Accordingly, the instant application stands allowed in part.

¶24

(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)

¶25

November 17, 2025 Shaswat

¶26

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

Vikash Sharma Alias Vishal Sharma v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikash Sharma Alias Vishal Sharma v. State of U.P. 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

Similar cases

Jubair and 6 Others vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shakeel and Another vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Dr Gama Alias Shakhavat vs State of U.P. and Another

Vinod Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Balwant Yadav and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Harendra Pal and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another