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

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 19451 of 2026

¶3

Krishna Singh And Another

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

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

¶6

Court No. - 77

¶7

HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

¶8

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

¶9

Present application has been preferred with the prayer to quash the chargesheet dated 20.12.2024 and cognizance/summoning order dated 11.06.2025 along with entire proceedings of Case No.29451 of 2025 (State Vs. Krishna Singh and others) arising out of Case Crime no. 305 of 2024, under Sections 406, 420, 504, 506 IPC, P.S.- Cantt. District Varanasi, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi.

¶10

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of applicants 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:-

¶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

¶12

NA528 No. 19451 of 2026

¶13

2

¶14

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.

¶15

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.

¶16

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.

¶17

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."

¶18

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

¶19

NA528 No. 19451 of 2026

¶20

3

¶21

opposite party no.2.

¶22

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. have 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.

¶23

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 11.06.2025 passed in Case No.29451 of 2025 (State Vs. Krishna Singh and others) arising out of Case Crime no. 305 of 2024, under Sections 406, 420, 504, 506 IPC, P.S.- Cantt. District Varanasi, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi, 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).

¶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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishna Singh 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Priyam Mishra vs State of U.P. and Another

Arun Kumar and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Lucky vs State of U.P. and Another

Avanish Pandey Alias Ranu vs State of U.P. and Another

Raj Srivastava and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

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