Ranveer Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Present application has been preferred with the prayer to quash the chargesheet dated 03.10.2019 and cognizance/summoning order dated 16.01.2020 as well as entire proceedings of Case No.68 of 2020 (State Vs. Ranveer Singh), arising out of Case Crime No.132 of 2019, under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC, P.S.- Charra, District Aligarh, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Aligarh.

¶10

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:-

¶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. 5561 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

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer sought through the instant application but unable to dispute the settled

¶19

NA528 No. 5561 of 2026

¶20

3

¶21

proposition of law as relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for applicant.

¶22

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.

¶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 16.01.2020 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 16.01.2020 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.

¶24

In view thereof, cognizance/summoning order dated 16.01.2020 passed in Case No.68 of 2020 (State Vs. Ranveer Singh), arising out of Case Crime No.132 of 2019, under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC, P.S.- Charra, District Aligarh, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Aligarh, 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).

¶25

Accordingly, the instant application stands allowed in part .

¶26

April 20, 2026

¶27

Ashish/-

¶28

(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)

¶29

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranveer Singh 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

Ramsurat Prasad vs State of U.P. and Another

Ramrekha Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Man Singh Yadav and 6 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Hasrat and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Minku Yadav and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another