Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:36960 Court No. - 15 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 627 of 2025 Applicant :- Deepak Kedia Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. The Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Gulam Rabbani Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J. 1. Heard Sri Gulam Rabbani, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Hansraj Verma, the learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State, Sri Suresh Chandra Pandey, Advocate who has put in appearance on behalf of the informant/opposite party no.2 and filed his vakalatnama, which is taken on record. 2. By means of the instant application filed under Section 528 B.N.S.S. the applicant has prayed for quashing of the charge sheet no.564/2024 dated 06.12.2024, cognizance/summoning order dated 21.03.2025 along with entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.2262 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No.648 of 2024, under Sections 406, 420 I.P.C. relating to Police Station Akbarpur, District Ambedkar Nagar, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar. 3. The aforesaid case has been instituted on the basis of F.I.R. lodged by the opposite party no.2 on 24.10.2024 against the applicant and Nazmi Zia on the basis of an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. stating that the applicant had availed credit facility from the informant bank in various installments and on 31.03.2023 he owed a liability of Rs.2,48,74,291.04 to the informant bank. The applicant had mortgaged the property with the bank and he executed a sale deed dated 30.12.2021 in favour of co-accused Nazmi Zia in respect of a portion of the mortgaged property. 4. After investigation the Investigating Officer has submitted a charge sheet on 06.12.2024 for commission of offences under Sections 406 and 420 I.P.C. and the trial court has taken cognizance of the offence and summoned the accused persons to face trial by means of an order dated 21.03.2025. 5. While assailing the validity of the charge sheet and the summoning order the learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the F.I.R. has been lodged to put undue pressure on the applicant for recovery of the loan amount which dispute is essentially of civil nature and regarding which the bank has already instituted proceedings before the D.R.T. The learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mitesh Kumar J. Sha Vs. State of Karnataka and others: (2022) 14 SCC 572, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the facts of that case could at best be termed as one involving a mere breach of contract and it did not make out the offence of cheating. The Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to the precedents in the cases of Indian Oil Corporation Vs. NEPC India Ltd. (2006) 6 SCC 736, G.Sagar Suri Vs. State of U.P. (2000) 2 SCC 636, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 & Randheer Singh Vs. State of U.P. (2021) 14 SCC 626. 6. In Randheer Singh (Supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: "33....There can be no doubt that jurisdiction under section 482 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 should be used sparingly for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Whether a complaint discloses criminal offence or not depends on the nature of the allegation and whether the essential ingredients of a criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the High Court. There can be no doubt that a complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. The High Court has, however, to see whether the dispute of a civil nature has been given colour of criminal offence. In such a situation, the High Court should not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings as held by this Court in Paramjeet Batra (supra) extracted above." 7. When we examine the facts of the present case in light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Randheer Singh (Supra), it appears that the allegation is not merely of committing default in repayment of the money borrowed from the opposite party no.2 bank, but the allegation is that the applicant had mortgaged a certain property with the bank and thereafter he sold away a part of the mortgaged property. The allegation against the applicant is that he obtained credit facility from the bank and thereafter misappropriated the same. This prima facie makes out a case of commission of criminal breach of trust as defined under Section 405 I.P.C. which is punishable under Section 406 I.P.C. Further allegation against the applicant is that he sold away a part of the mortgaged land without the mortgage having been redeemed, make out a case of cheating as defined under Section 415 I.P.C. and punishable under Section 420 I.P.C. 8. The learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. and others Vs. State of U.P. and others: (2024) 10 SCC 690 which has been followed in Rikhab Birani and another Vs. State of U.P. and another: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 823 in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the same set of allegation would not make out offences both under Section 406 I.P.C. and Section 420 I.P.C. 9. In the present case, the commission of offences of criminal breach of trust and cheating are not arising on the basis of same set of facts. The offence of criminal breach of truest is arising from misappropriation of credit facility availed by the applicant from the opposite party no.2-bank and the offence of cheating is being alleged on the basis of his having sold away a part of mortgaged property without redeeming the same. Therefore, as the offences under Section 405 I.P.C. and 415 I.P.C. are arising out of different sets of facts, the applicant can be tried for commission of both the offences. 10. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant had sought permission for selling away a part of the mortgaged property by sending an email to the bank and the concerned officer of the bank had orally granted permission to the applicant for selling away part of the mortgaged land. As the land has been sold away under the oral permission granted by the bank's officer the applicant has not committed any illegality in execution of the sale deed. 11. The banks and its authorities pass orders through written communications only and the allegation that the applicant had been orally permitted to sell away a part of the mortgaged property, cannot be accepted so as to make out a ground for quashing of the criminal proceedings against the applicant. 12. In view of foregoing discussions, I am of the view that the application lacks merit and the same is dismissed. . [Subhash Vidyarthi, J.] Order Date :- 1.7.2025 Ram. Digitally signed by :- RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench