Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:145868 Court No. - 71 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 23235 of 2025 Applicant :- Jai Prakash And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Mishra,Vimlendu Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Gaurav Singh Tomar,Nushra Siddiqui,Vivek Mishra Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicants is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 3. This application u/s 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as 'BNSS') has been filed for quashing of the entire proceedings, including charge-sheet dated 12.05.2024 as well as cognizance / summoning order dated 03.06.2024 & order of framing of charge dated 18.07.2024, of Case No. 6629 of 2024 (State Vs. Sudhir Kumar Goyal and another), arising out of Case Crime No.50 of 2024, under Sections 420, 406, 120B IPC, P.S.- Kotwali Dehat, District- Bulandshahr, pending in the court of C.J.M., Bulandshahr. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. The dispute is civil in nature. The trial court framed the charge under Sections 420, 406, 120B I.P.C. against the applicants, without considering facts and law. 5. It is further submitted that as per law laid down in case of Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another 2024 SCC Online SC 2248, the offence of cheating viz-a-viz criminal breach of trust are independent and distinct and both cannot exist simultaneously and on this account alone the impugned summoning order is liable to be set aside. Referring to facts of the matter and position of law, it was submitted that impugned summoning order dated 03.06.2024 as well as impugned order dated 18.07.2024, by which charges have been framed under Sections 420, 406 IPC, are liable to be quashed. 6. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application but aforesaid legal position could not be disputed. 7. I have considered rival submissions and perused the record. 8. In the instant matter it appears that applicants have been summoned for offence under Sections 406, 420, 120B IPC vide impugned order dated 03.06.2024 and that charges have been framed against applicants for offence under Sections 420, 406, 120B IPC vide impugned order dated 18.07.2024. In case of Delhi Race Club (supra), the Apex Court has held as under:- "42. When dealing with a private complaint, the law enjoins upon the magistrate a duty to meticulously examine the contents of the complaint so as to determine whether the offence of cheating or criminal breach of trust as the case may be is made out from the averments made in the complaint. The magistrate must carefully apply its mind to ascertain whether the allegations, as stated, genuinely constitute these specific offences. In contrast, when a case arises from a FIR, this responsibility is of the police ? to thoroughly ascertain whether the allegations levelled by the informant indeed falls under the category of cheating or criminal breach of trust. Unfortunately, it has become a common practice for the police officers to routinely and mechanically proceed to register an FIR for both the offences i.e. criminal breach of trust and cheating on a mere allegation of some dishonesty or fraud, without any proper application of mind. 43. 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 viz-a-viz 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 the IPC (now BNS, 2023) are not twins that they cannot survive without each other." 9. Thus, it is clear that offence of cheating viz-a-viz criminal breach of trust are distinct and independent and both these offences can not co-exist simultaneously in same set of facts and that they are antithetical to each other. In view of these position of law, it is apparent that impugned summoning order as well as the impugned order of charge is against law and thus liable to be quashed. 10. In view of aforesaid, the impugned summoning order dated 03.06.2024 and order of charge dated 12.05.2024 are set aside. The matter is remanded back to learned trial Court concerned to pass an order on point of summoning afresh in accordance with law. Thereafter, case shall proceed further in accordance with law. 11. With aforesaid direction, the present application under Section 528 BNSS is accordingly, allowed. Order Date :- 23.8.2025 'SP'/- NA528 No. 23235 of 2025 2 Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad