Rahul Agarwal vs State of U.P. and Another

The present Criminal Revision has been preferred against the impugned order dated 03.12.2025, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 04, Agra, in the Discharge Application bearing Misc. Case No. 11 of 2018 (Saurabh Bansal vs. Rahul Agarwal), arising out of Complaint Case No. 908251 of 2018 (Saurabh Bansal vs. Rahul Agarwal) under Section 406 of the I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, District Agra, whereby the discharge application of the revisionist has been illegally rejected by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 4, Agra.

¶10

Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the dispute, if any, between the parties is purely commercial in nature and no ingredients of any criminal offence are made out. It is further submitted that the trial court has erroneously summoned the accused/revisionist under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶11

Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code defines criminal breach of trust. It states that if a person is entrusted with property, or has control over it, and dishonestly misappropriates or converts it to his own use, or dishonestly uses or disposes of it in violation of any direction of law or any legal contract (whether express or implied) relating to such trust, or willfully allows another person to do so, he commits the offence of criminal breach of trust.

¶12

Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code prescribes the punishment for criminal breach of trust. It provides that any person who commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

¶13

In the present case, the complainant/opposite party no. 2 filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., pursuant to which an FIR was lodged against the revisionist under Sections 420, 406, 504, and 506 IPC. As

¶14

CRLR No. 1130 of 2026

¶15

2

¶16

per the allegations in the FIR, the complainant is running a reputed jewellery shop. The revisionist, having come to know of the good reputation of the shop, approached the complainant and entered into a business arrangement subject to certain terms and conditions, including that payment for goods supplied would be made on two months' credit.

¶17

It is alleged that the revisionist received goods worth Rs. 3,31,938/- dated 29.06.2016; Rs. 2,64,987/- dated 23.05.2016; Rs. 2,69,267/- dated 30.01.2016; and Rs. 2,47,484/- dated 11.10.2015 from opposite party No. 2/complainant. A sum of Rs. 5,24,929/- remains outstanding against Rahul Agarwal/revisionist. Despite repeated demands and the issuance of a legal notice, the revisionist has allegedly avoided making the payment. It is further alleged that when payment was demanded, the revisionist hurled abuses and extended threats to kill the complainant if the outstanding amount was demanded again. Thus, the revisionist has willfully and deliberately refused to make payment and has thereby committed criminal breach of trust with dishonest intention.

¶18

The business relationship between the parties is not disputed. The complaint discloses entrustment of property. It is specifically alleged that the goods were obtained by the revisionist with dishonest intention and were dishonestly misappropriated and converted to his own use.

¶19

Section 405 of the IPC clearly defines the offence of criminal breach of trust in the following terms: whoever, being entrusted with property or with dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts such property to his own use, or willfully suffers any other person to do so, commits criminal breach of trust. In the present case, the accused has been summoned under Section 406 IPC, which prescribes punishment for the offence of criminal breach of trust. A perusal of the complaint filed by Opposite Party No. 2 prima facie discloses the essential ingredients constituting the offence as defined under Section 405 IPC, thereby justifying the summoning of the accused under Section 406 IPC.

¶20

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, as well as the settled position of law, this Court finds that the discharge application has rightly been rejected by the learned trial court. The impugned order is well reasoned and does not suffer from any illegality, irregularity, or perversity warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.

¶21

Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed and is, hereby, dismissed.

¶22

February 16, 2026

¶23

M. Tarik

¶24

(Abdul Shahid,J.)

¶25

Digitally signed by :- MOHD TARIK High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rahul Agarwal v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Agarwal v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nekpal and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Yahiya and Anotehr vs State of U.P. and Another

Dukhi vs State of U.P. and 8 Others

Veer Pratap Singh @ Veer Bahadur Singh @ Biru Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another

Gaurav Bharadwaj vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Akash Kumar and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another