Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 71946 (ALL)

BHAGIRATH GAUTAM v. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

NA528/28307/2025 · 2025-09-10

Raj Beer Singh

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 28307 of 2025 Court No. - 71 HON'BLE RAJ BEER SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This application under Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita ( hereinafter referred to as 'BNSS') has been filed for quashing of entire proceedings, including charge-sheet dated 23.05.2021 as well as cognizance / summoning order dated 03.01.2022, of Case No. 211 of 2022 (State Vs. Bhagirath Gautam), arising out of Case Crime No.194 of 2021, under Sections 420, 406 IPC, P.S.- Highway, District- Mathura, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathura. 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the first information report of this case has been lodged making false allegations. It is further submitted that by impugned order dated 03.01.2022 applicant has been summoned for offence under Sections 420, 406 I.P.C. and 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, 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. 4. Perusal of record shows that by impugned order dated 03.01.2022 applicant has been summoned for offence under Sections 420, 406 I.P.C. As stated above, in case of Delhi Race Club (supra), it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that offence of cheating viz-a-viz criminal breach of trust are independent and distinct and both cannot exist simultaneously in Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anuj Bajpai, Sanjay Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Bhagirath Gautam .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) same set of facts and that they are antithetical to each other. Thus, it is clear that impugned summoning order is not in accordance with law. 5. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned summoning order dated 03.01.2022, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathura is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the court concerned to pass the order on the point of summoning afresh, expeditiously in accordance with law. 6. The application u/s 528 BNSS is finally disposed of in above terms. September 11, 2025 'SP'/- NA528 No. 28307 of 2025 2 (Raj Beer Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad