HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 8709 of 2025 Court No. - 83 HON'BLE SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV, J. 1. Heard Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA for the State as well as perused the record. 2. This criminal appeal under Section14-A(1) of SC/ST Act has been filed by the appellant for setting-aside the charge sheet no.38 of 2024, dated 05.02.2024 as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 29.04.2024 passed by Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Etawah, in S.T. No.601 of 2024 (State of U.P. versus Pushpa Devi and others) arising out of Case Crime No.06 of 2024, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 452, 406, 420 IPC and section 3(1)RS and 3(2)(5A) SC/ST Act, Police Station- Friends Colony, District- Etawah, pending before the Court of Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Etawah. 3. As per prosecution story, an agreement to sell was registered before Registrar at Tehsil Etawah for which a sum of Rs. 12,50,000/- in bank account and 2,50,000/- cash has been paid to the co-accused Pushpa and after receiving remaining 2,00,000/-rupees the agreement to sale deed shall concluded on or before 27.01.2020 but after two years on 25.09.2023 at about 10.00 pm, the appellants along with others co-accused came to the opposite party no.2 and abused and threatened the opposite party no.2. As per agreement to sale, the opposite party no.2 would pay Rs.2,00,000/- within one year from date of commencement of agreement to sale deed but the opposite party no.2 failed to pay the amount within time and harassing the co-accused Pushpa to sale her property at given money only and also threatening him to file forged and frivolous cases against him and other family members. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. The matter relates to civil dispute. He further submits that since the charge-sheet has been filed against the appellant under Sections 406 and 420 I.P.C., it is not permissible Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Pankaj Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Ramakant And Another .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) as per the law propounded 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, wherein it has been held that both the sections can not go in same breath. He has relied upon paragraph no.43 of the said judgment, which reads as under:- "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 offences of cheating viz-a- viz criminal breach of trust. Both offences cannot coexist simultaneously in the same set of facts. They are antithetical to each other. The two provisions of the IPC (now BNS, 2023) are not twins that they cannot survive without each other". 5. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the learned court without considering the material facts and evidence and applying his judicial mind summoned the appellant in a routine manner. The impugned summoning order is liable to be set-aside. 6. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the appeal but does not dispute the settled legal position. 7. Upon hearing rival submissions and perusal of the record, this Court finds that the learned Special Judge has not applied his judicial mind while passing the impugned summoning order. 8. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 29.4.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Etawah, is hereby quashed and set- aside. The matter is remitted back to the Court below to pass afresh order in accordance with law. 9. With the above observations/directions, the instant criminal appeal is allowed. September 24, 2025 Krishna* CRLA No. 8709 of 2025 2 (Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.) Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad