Partly allowed¶6

Pushpendra v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC28 Oct 2025NA528/32764/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court; APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. 32764 of 2025; Pushpendra v. State of U.P.; quashing of cognizance/summoning order dated 24.03.2025 and proceedings in Criminal Case No.9244 of 2025 (Case Crime No.940 of 2024) under Sections 420, 406, 506 IPC, PS Kotwali City, District Bijnor; cheating and criminal breach of trust cannot coexist; Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. v. State of U.P., (2024) 10 SCC 690 followed; matter remanded to CJM Bijnor for fresh cognizance; application allowed in part; decided October 28, 2025 by Saurabh Srivastava, J.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed in part: cognizance/summoning order dated 24.03.2025 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bijnor quashed, and matter remitted for a fresh cognizance order, if required, in light of Delhi Race Club (supra). ¶6

Pushpendra vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶6

Issue for consideration

Whether the charge sheet, cognizance/summoning order dated 24.03.2025 and entire proceedings in Criminal Case No.9244 of 2025 under Sections 420, 406, 506 IPC are liable to be quashed on the ground that offences under Sections 420 and 406 IPC cannot go together in the same breath.

¶3

Court's answer

Sections 420 and 406 IPC cannot go in the same breath; following Delhi Race Club (supra), the two offences cannot coexist simultaneously on the same set of facts.

¶5

Ratio / Principle

The cognizance/summoning order dated 24.03.2025 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bijnor in Criminal Case No.9244 of 2025 (State vs. Pushpendra) is quashed.

¶5

Key takeaways

The matter is remitted back to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bijnor for passing a fresh order of taking cognizance of the offence, if required, in light of the proposition of law settled in Delhi Race Club (supra).ratio¶5

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Quashing — Application under S.528 BNSS seeking quashing of proceedings in Criminal Case No.9244 of 2025 (State vs. Pushpendra), arising out of Case Crime No.940 of 2024 under Sections 420, 406, 506 IPC, Police Station Kotwali City, District Bijnor, along with the cognizance/summoning order dated 24.03.2025 and charge sheet dated 28.10.2024 — Held, following Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. v. State of U.P., (2024) 10 SCC 690, that offences of cheating (S.420 IPC) and criminal breach of trust (S.406 IPC) are antithetical and cannot coexist simultaneously on the same set of facts — Cognizance/summoning order dated 24.03.2025 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bijnor quashed — Matter remitted to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bijnor for a fresh order of taking cognizance, if required, in light of the Supreme Court's ruling — Application allowed in part.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 32764 of 2025

¶3

Pushpendra

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Bhupendra Kuamr Tripathi 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 entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.9244 of 2025 (State vs. Pushpendra) arising out of Case Crime No.940 of 2024 under Sections 420, 406, 506 IPC, Police Station Kotwali City, District Bijnor pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bijnor as well as cognizance order dated 24.03.2025 and charge sheet dated 28.10.2024 in the aforesaid case.

¶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

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

¶13

NA528 No. 32764 of 2025

¶14

¶15

offence is said to have been committed. Therefore, it is this intention, which is the gist of the offence.

¶16

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.

¶17

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."

¶18

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.

¶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 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 24.03.2025 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bijnor in Criminal Case No.9244 of 2025 (State vs. Pushpendra), arising out of Case Crime no. 940 of 2024, under Sections 420, 406, 506 IPC, Police Station Kotwali City, District Bijnor, is quashed. Matter is hereby remitted back to learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bijnor 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).

¶20

Accordingly, the instant application stands allowed in part .

¶21

(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)

¶22

October 28, 2025 Rakesh

¶23

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

Pushpendra v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pushpendra 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

Malkhan Singh and 7 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Sanjay Kumar Srivastava vs State of U.P. and Another

Narayan Singh Gautam vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Dinesh @ Dinesh Kumar and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Adarsh Ojha vs State of U.P. and 3 Others