No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS C-482 No. 862 of 2022 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Ravi Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Pradeep Lohani, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. The present criminal misc. application has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with a prayer to quash/set-aside the chargesheet dated 12.10.2012 and consequential order dated 18.11.2015 passed by learned ACJM 2nd, Dehradun in Criminal Case No. 3718 of 2012, under Sections 420 and 409 of IPC, whereby, the non-bailable warrants were issued against the applicant. Further prayer has been made to set-aside/quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 3718 of 2012, State Vs. N.K. Upadhayay, pending in the court of learned ACJM 1st, Dehradun. 4. It is the case of the applicant that applicant served on deputation as a Nodal Officer with the Uttarakhand Sugars from September, 2001 till November, 2008 and after that, he was repatriated to Uttar Pradesh. Thereafter, new Nodal Officer came in his place, who, found that applicant had opened a different bank account without any information and permission from the higher authorities. Thereafter, immediately a preliminary inquiry was conducted and FIR was lodged, which culminated in filing of impugned chargesheet. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that during pendency of the above criminal cases, a departmental proceeding was also initiated against the applicant in which it was revealed that no loss occurred due to opening of separate bank account and neither any cheating nor any misappropriation of government fund was done by the applicant. To the contrary, it has come in the inquiry report that the cooperation was in profit, as the money was deposited in fixed deposits in the Nationalised Bank, which was giving maximum return. It was further mentioned in the inquiry report that the Government has taken a decision to withdraw the pending criminal cases against the applicant. Consequently, an application under Section 321 Cr.P.C. was moved by the Assistant Public Prosecution concerned before the competent Court, which was rejected by the concerned Trial Court. The revision was also preferred against the same with a delay and the revision too was dismissed on the ground of delay. It is submitted that learned Session Judge concerned failed to consider this fact that the delay was not on part of the applicant, but, rather on part of the Government. Furthermore, it is submitted that Sections 420 and 409 of IPC, under which, the applicant has been charged cannot co-exist. 6. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon a judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Race Club Ltd. Vs. State of U.P., reported in (2024) 10 SCC 690. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. Neither any charge of cheating or misappropriation of government fund was found in the departmental inquiry nor any loss has been caused to the respondent-department and applicant was, in fact, exonerated in the departmental inquiry and in the inquiry report, it was mentioned that the Government has taken a decision to withdraw the pending criminal cases against the applicant. 9. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid case, this Court is of the view that the offence under Section 409 and 420 IPC are mutually exclusive and different in their foundation. In case of criminal breach of trust, the offender is lawfully entrusted with the property and he dishonestly misappropriate the same whereas in case of cheating, the offender fraudulently or dishonestly induces a person by deceiving him to deliver any such property. Therefore, to invoke Section 409 IPC, entrustment and misappropriation are the necessary ingredients, while to constitute offence under Section 420 IPC, dishonest intention should be there from the inception. Thus, the prosecution has failed to make out any offence punishable under Sections 420 and 409 of IPC against the applicant. In such circumstances, allowing the criminal proceedings to continue against the applicant would be an abuse of the process of law. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that it is a fit case to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to secure the ends of justice. 10. Accordingly, the present criminal miscellaneous application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is allowed and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 3718 of 2012, State Vs. N.K. Upadhayay, pending in the court of learned ACJM 1st, Dehradun, is hereby quashed, qua the applicant. (Alok Mahra J.) 23.04.2026 Ujjwal