Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:133560 Court No. - 71 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 24993 of 2025 Applicant :- Upendra Singh And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Singh,Krishna Murari Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Avnish Saxena,J. 1. Heard Sri Krishna Murari Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicants, and the learned A.G.A. Perused the record. 2. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the F.I.R. has been registered against the applicants by the daughter of deceased Amar Singh with the allegation that the applicants along with other co-accused has usurped the brick kiln of her father. After investigation charge-sheet is submitted against four accused for the offence under Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471and 506 I.P.C.,Police Station Ajeetmal, District Auraiya. It is further contended that Sections 406 and 420 I.P.C. can not go together in view of judgement of Supreme Court in Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. and others versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another (2024) 10 Supreme Court Cases 690, hence it is prayed that charge-sheet and cognizance order be quashed. 3. Learned A.G.A. opposed the contention of the learned counsel for the applicants and submitted that the matter be looked into at the time of framing of charge. 4. Considering aforesaid the submissions, no notice is required to be issued to opposite party no.2. 5. The records, prima facie, reveal that late father of informant namely Amar Singh has entered into an agreement with a co- accused Santosh Tiwari with 20 per cent of share in the brick kiln. After death of Amar Singh, accused-Santosh Tiwari has executed partition deed along with other co-accused. The allegations of the informant is in respect to preparation of forged document to usurp the brick kiln of father of the informant. This Court does not find it proper to interfere in the outcome of the investigation merely because two conflicting provision of IPC also found place in the charge sheet or in the cognizance order. The Magistrate may look into the same at the stage of framing of charge. 6. At this juncture, Sri Tripathi, learned counsel has limited his prayer to quash the cognizance order, as the order does not reflect the application of mind, though stated that the order would be assailed in revision but he has filed an application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. with the prayer of quashing the entire proceeding as well as summoning order dated 03.10.2022. 7. This Court is of the view that the point made by Sri Singh has got substance, therefore, the impugned cognizance order dated 03.10.2022 in case crime no. 0196 of 2025, under Section 406, 419, 420, 467, 471, 506 IPC, P.S. Ajeetmal, District Auraiya in which the learned Magistrate has taken the cognizance, simultaneously, under Sections 420 and 406 IPC is hereby quashed. 8. Learned Magistrate may take into consideration the case diary to pass a fresh order of cognizance. 9. Hence, the application is disposed of accordingly. Order Date :- 7.8.2025 MN/- (Avnish Saxena,J.) Digitally signed by :- MAHENDRA NATH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad