Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:84702 Court No. - 52 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 6440 of 2025 Applicant :- Chandan Yadav And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Chaudhary Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Gaurav Kumar Shukla,Shesh Nath Bhatt Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J. Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar Chaudhary, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Shesh Nath Bhatt, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Mr. Satyendra Tiwari, learned counsel for the State. The present application has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 03.08.2023 and supplementary charge sheet dated 10.05.2024 as well as cognizance order dated 05.07.2024 and the entire proceedings of Case No.1500 of 2024, (State vs. Chandan Yadav and others), arising out of Case Crime No.144 of 2023, under Sections 406, 420, 323, 342, 504, 506, 365, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C., P.S.-Lalganj, District-Basti, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Basti. At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the offences under Sections 420 and 406 IPC cannot co-exist simultaneously, therefore, the cognizance order may be set aside and the continuance of proceedings on the basis of such cognizance order, is also nothing but an abuse of process of law. In support of his submission, he has relied upon judgement of Apex Court passed in Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2248. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 could not dispute the aforesaid fact. Learned A.G.A. for the State relying upon paragraph-42 of the aforesaid judgement submits that duty of the Magistrate to meticulously examine the contents of the FIR and determine as to whether the offences under Sections 406 and 420 I.P.C. are made out. In the present case, the concerned Magistrate has taken cognizance on both the sections not specifying as to which section is made out as in the cognizance order Sections 406, 420, 323, 342, 504, 506, 365, 467, 468, 471, 120B I.P.C. have been mentioned. In such circumstances, cognizance order may be set aside and the matter may be remitted. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this application is being finally disposed of at this stage without calling for further affidavit. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, keeping in mind the decision given in the case of Delhi Race Club (supra), cognizance order dated 05.07.2024 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Basti cannot be legally sustained and is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the court concerned to decide afresh in accordance with law by means of a reasoned and speaking order, keeping in view the guidelines as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another; 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2248, as expeditiously as possible. With the aforesaid direction, this application stands disposed of. Office is directed to communicate this order to the Court concerned forthwith. Order Date :- 20.5.2025 Jitendra/- Digitally signed by :- JITENDRA KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad