Prahlad Vishwakarma vs State of U.P. and Another

Present application has been preferred with the prayer to quash the charge-sheet dated 28.07.2024 and cognizance/summoning order dated 05.11.2024 passed by learned A.C.J.M. Vth, Court No.16, Jaunpur as well as entire proceedings of Case No.1501 of 2024 (State vs. Prahlad) arising out of Case Crime No.220 of 2024, under Sections 406, 420 IPC, P.S. Shahganj, District- Jaunpur, pending in the court of learned A.C.J.M. IInd, Jaunpur.

¶10

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of applicant has challenged the impugned charge-sheet 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. 31837 of 2025

¶13

2

¶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 A.G.A. 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 applicant.

¶18

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 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, cognizance/summoning order dated 05.11.2024 passed by learned A.C.J.M. Vth, Court No.16, Jaunpur in Case No.1501 of 2024 (State vs. Prahlad) arising out of Case Crime No.220 of 2024, under Sections 406, 420 IPC, P.S. Shahganj, District- Jaunpur, is quashed . Matter is hereby remitted back to learned A.C.J.M. Vth, Court No.16, Jaunpur/court concerned for passing

¶19

NA528 No. 31837 of 2025

¶20

3

¶21

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) .

¶22

Accordingly, the instant application stands allowed in part .

¶23

November 13, 2025 Saif

¶24

(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)

¶25

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

Prahlad Vishwakarma v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prahlad Vishwakarma 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

Similar cases

Sanjay and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Vishal Verma @ Vikash Sharma @ Vikki and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Jamuna Prasad Verma and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Satyendra Chaudhari vs State of U.P. and Another

Bhagwat and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Sanjay vs State of U.P. and Another