Partly allowed¶25

Sri Rajukhan v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC12 May 2026NA528/19341/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing application under Section 528 BNSS; S. 420 IPC (cheating) and S. 406 IPC (criminal breach of trust) cannot be charged together per Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. v. State of U.P., 2024 10 SCC 690 (followed); cognizance/summoning order dated 02.12.2024 in Case No. 32 of 2024 (State v. Rajukhan), arising out of Case Crime No. 330 of 2024, Ss. 420/406/504/506 IPC, P.S. Dibiyapur, District Auraiya (ACJM, Auraiya) quashed; matter remanded for fresh cognizance order if required; application allowed in part; decided 12.05.2026; applicant Rajukhan; State of U.P.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed in part: cognizance/summoning order dated 02.12.2024 in Case No.32 of 2024 (State Vs. Rajukhan) quashed; matter remitted to the learned court concerned for a fresh cognizance order, if required, in light of Delhi Race Club (supra).

Sri Rajukhan vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the chargesheet dated 19.09.2024, the cognizance/summoning order dated 02.12.2024 and the entire proceedings of Case No.32 of 2024 (arising out of Case Crime No. 330 of 2024, under Sections 420, 406, 504, 506 IPC) are liable to be quashed on the ground that Sections 420 and 406 IPC cannot be invoked together in the same set of facts, as per the proposition settled by the Supreme Court in Delhi Race Club (supra).

¶11

Court's answer

Following the Supreme Court in Delhi Race Club (supra), this Court holds that Sections 420 and 406 IPC cannot go in the same breath, i.e., the two offences cannot coexist in the same set of facts.

¶21

Ratio / Principle

The cognizance/summoning order dated 02.12.2024 passed in Case No.32 of 2024 (State Vs. Rajukhan) is quashed.

¶24

Key takeaways

The matter is remitted back to the learned court concerned for passing a fresh order of taking cognizance of offence, if required, in light of the proposition of law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Delhi Race Club (supra).ratio¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Saurabh Srivastava, J.) — Application under S. 528 BNSS seeking quashing of chargesheet dated 19.09.2024 and cognizance/summoning order dated 02.12.2024 in Case No. 32 of 2024 (State v. Rajukhan), arising out of Case Crime No. 330 of 2024, under Sections 420, 406, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Dibiyapur, District Auraiya. HELD, following the Supreme Court in Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2024 10 SCC 690, that the offences of cheating (S. 420 IPC) and criminal breach of trust (S. 406 IPC) are antithetical and cannot coexist simultaneously in the same set of facts; the cognizance/summoning order dated 02.12.2024 was quashed and the matter remitted to the court concerned for a fresh cognizance order, if required, in light of Delhi Race Club (supra). Application allowed in part.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 19341 of 2026

Sri Rajukhan

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State of U.P. and Another

¶7

	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Anand Pati Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.
Court No.- 77

¶8

HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

¶9

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

¶10

Present application has been preferred with the prayer to quash the chargesheet dated 19.09.2024 and cognizance/summoning order dated 02.12.2024 along with entire proceedings of Case No.32 of 2024 (State Vs. Rajukhan) arising out of Case Crime no. 330 of 2024, under Sections 420, 406, 504, 506 IPC, P.S.- Dibiyapur, District Auraiya, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Auraiya.

¶11

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of applicant has challenged the impugned chargesheet along with cognizance/summoning order 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:-

¶12

"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.

¶13

41. The distinction between mere breach of contract and the

¶14

NA528 No. 19341 of 2026

¶15

¶16

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.

¶17

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.

¶18

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."

¶19

Since the arguments as advanced on behalf of learned counsel for applicant, are based on legal issue, no notice is required to be issued to opposite party no.2.

¶20

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.

¶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,

¶22

NA528 No. 19341 of 2026

¶23

¶24

cognizance/summoning order dated 02.12.2024 passed in Case No.32 of 2024 (State Vs. Rajukhan) arising out of Case Crime no. 330 of 2024, under Sections 420, 406, 504, 506 IPC, P.S.- Dibiyapur, District Auraiya, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Auraiya, is quashed. Matter is hereby remitted back to learned court concerned 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).

¶25

Accordingly, the instant application stands allowed in part .

¶26

May 12, 2026 Vivek Kr.

¶27

(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)

¶28

Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sri Rajukhan v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Rajukhan 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

Krishna Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashish Kumar Chaturvedi and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Ashish Kumar Chaturvedi and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Brajesh Kumari and Another vs State of Up and Another

Dipika vs State of U.P. and Another