Partly allowed¶8

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

Allahabad HC12 May 2026NA528/19379/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

S.528 BNSS quashing — cheating (S.420 IPC) and criminal breach of trust (S.406 IPC) cannot coexist / cannot go in the same breath — Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd., (2024) 10 SCC 690 applied — retrospectivity of Supreme Court judgments per Kanishk Sinha, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 443 — cognizance/summoning order dated 07.07.2023 set aside — remitted for fresh cognizance — Case Crime No. 558 of 2022, P.S. Sungadhi, District Pilibhit — Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pilibhit.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 528 BNSS allowed in part: cognizance/summoning order dated 07.07.2023 set aside and matter remitted to the learned court concerned for a fresh order of taking cognizance, if required, in light of Delhi Race Club (supra). ¶8

Ashish Kumar Chaturvedi and 4 Others vs State of U.P… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶8

Issue for consideration

Whether the chargesheet dated 31.12.2022, cognizance/summoning order dated 07.07.2023 and entire proceedings of Case No. 9505 of 2023 under Sections 420 and 406 IPC are liable to be quashed on the ground that the two offences cannot go together in the same breath, as held in Delhi Race Club (supra). +1 more

¶3

Court's answer

Sections 420 and 406 IPC cannot go in the same breath, and consequently the cognizance/summoning order dated 07.07.2023 is liable to be set aside.

¶6

Ratio / Principle

Per Kanishk Sinha (supra), a judgment of the Apex Court operates retrospectively unless it specifically states that it will operate prospectively; therefore Delhi Race Club (decided 23.08.2024) governs the cognizance taken on 07.07.2023.

¶22

Key takeaways

The cognizance/summoning order dated 07.07.2023 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the court concerned for passing a fresh order of taking cognizance, if required, in light of the proposition of law settled in Delhi Race Club (supra).ratio¶7

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Saurabh Srivastava, J.) partly allowed an application under Section 528 BNSS seeking quashing of the chargesheet dated 31.12.2022 and cognizance/summoning order dated 07.07.2023 in Case No. 9505 of 2023 (arising out of Case Crime No. 558 of 2022, Sections 420/406 IPC, P.S. Sungadhi, District Pilibhit). Applying Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. v. State of U.P., (2024) 10 SCC 690, the Court held that Sections 420 and 406 IPC cannot go in the same breath. Following Kanishk Sinha v. State of West Bengal, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 443, it held that an Apex Court judgment operates retrospectively unless it specifically states otherwise, so Delhi Race Club (dated 23.08.2024) covered the cognizance taken on 07.07.2023. The cognizance/summoning order was set aside and the matter remitted for a fresh cognizance order, if required, in light of Delhi Race Club.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 19379 of 2026

¶3

Ashish Kumar Chaturvedi And 4 Others

¶4

.....Applicant(s) Versus State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Chandrika Prasad Shukla 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 chargesheet dated 31.12.2022 and cognizance/summoning order dated 07.07.2023 as well as entire proceedings of Case No.9505 of 2023 (State Vs. Ashish Kumar Chaturvedi and others), arising out of Case Crime no. 558 of 2022, under Sections 420, 406 IPC, P.S.- Sungadhi, District Pilibhit, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Pilibhit.

¶9

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of applicants 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

¶11

NA528 No. 19379 of 2026

¶12

¶13

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.

¶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

¶18

NA528 No. 19379 of 2026

¶19

¶20

sought through the instant application but unable to dispute the settled proposition of law as relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for applicants.

¶21

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

¶22

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 07.07.2023 is liable to be set aside. Although judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Delhi Race Club (Supra) has been passed on 23.08.2024 and cognizance of offence in the present case, has been taken on dated 07.07.2023 and as per the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Kanishk Sinha and another Vs. The State of West Bengal and another [2025 SCC Online SC 443] , the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court will always be retrospective in nature unless the judgment itself specifically states that the judgment will operate prospectively.

¶23

In view thereof, cognizance/summoning order dated 07.07.2023 passed in Case No.16703 of 2022 (State Vs. Dr. Abhishek Yadav and others), arising out of Case No.9505 of 2023 (State Vs. Ashish Kumar Chaturvedi and others), arising out of Case Crime no. 558 of 2022, under Sections 420, 406 IPC, P.S.- Sungadhi, District Pilibhit, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Pilibhit, is set aside. 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).

¶24

Accordingly, the instant application stands allowed in part .

¶25

May 12, 2026

¶26

Ashish/-

¶27

(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)

¶28

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashish Kumar Chaturvedi and 4 Others 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

All orders in this case

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

Sri Rajukhan 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