Rajesh Sharma and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 17181 of 2026

Rajesh Sharma And Another

	Versus	.....Applicant(s)
State of U.P. and Another		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)		: Alok Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)		: G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 77

¶6

HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

¶7

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

¶8

Present application has been preferred with the prayer to quash the entire proceeding of Case no. 24124 of 2025 (State vs. Rajesh Sharma) arising out of Case Crime no. 45 of 2025 under sections 420, 506, 406 IPC, PS- Ankur Vihar, District Ghaziabad and quash the summoning order dated 4.8.2025 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 1st, Ghaziabad and charge sheet dated 18.5.2025.

¶9

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:-

¶10

"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

¶11

NA528 No. 17181 of 2026

¶12

2

¶13

of cheating as defined and explained in Section 415 IPC, punishable under Section 420 IPC.

¶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

NA528 No. 17181 of 2026

¶20

3

¶21

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 without interfering in any other merit of the present matter, cognizance/summoning order dated 4.8.2025 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 1st, Ghaziabad in Case no. 24124 of 2025 (State vs. Rajesh Sharma) arising out of Case Crime no. 45 of 2025 under sections 420, 506, 406 IPC, PSAnkur Vihar, District Ghaziabad, is quashed only in respect of applicant(s) herein. Matter is hereby remitted back to learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 1st, Ghaziabad 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).

¶22

Accordingly, the instant application stands allowed in part.

¶23

(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)

¶24

May 5, 2026 Shaswat

¶25

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

Rajesh Sharma and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Sharma and Another 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

Rupesh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Lallan Yadav @ Bharat and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Rafuddeen Vs State of U.P. and Another

Varun Sangwan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Akhilesh Yadav @ Akhil Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another