Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:140227 Court No. - 77 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 20892 of 2024 Applicant :- Robin Oberoi And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Akash Deep Srivastava,Ganesh Shanker Srivastava,Rishabh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sohit Prakash Sharma Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant application has been preferred for quashing the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.24914 of 2023 (State vs. Robin and Others) arising out of Case Crime No.75 of 2022, under sections 420, 406 & 506 I.P.C. and section 66D of I.T. Act, P.S. Kamla Nagar, District- Agra, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra, including cognizance order dated 06.07.2023. 3. Sri Akash Deep Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants submits that instant proceeding initiated against the applicants is on account of a civil dispute pending between the parties and as per narration of the F.I.R., no criminal offence is made out against them. It is further submitted that a person cannot indulge simultaneously in criminal breach of trust as well as in cheating and as such proceedings under sections 406 and 420 I.P.C. cannot co-exit simultaneously against the applicants. For substantiating his submission, learned counsel for applicants relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. vs. State of U.P., AIR 2024 SC 4531, wherein para-30 clearly highlights the same issue :- "30. The distinction between mere breach of contract and the offence of criminal breach of trust and cheating is a fine one. In case of cheating, the intention of the accused at the time of inducement should be looked into which may be judged by a subsequent conduct, but for this, the subsequent conduct is not the sole test. Mere breach of contract cannot give rise to a criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right from the beginning of the transaction i.e. the time when the offence is said to have been committed. Therefore, it is this intention, which is the gist of the offence. Whereas, for the criminal breach of trust, the property must have been entrusted to the accused or he must have dominion over it. The property in respect of which the offence of breach of trust has been committed must be either the property of some person other than the accused or the beneficial interest in or ownership' of it must be of some other person. The accused must hold that property on trust of such other person. Although the offence, i.e. the offence of breach of trust and cheating involve dishonest intention, yet they are mutually exclusive and different in basic concept. There is a distinction between criminal breach of trust and cheating. For cheating, criminal intention is necessary at the time of making a false or misleading representation i.e., since inception. In criminal breach of trust, mere proof of entrustment is sufficient. Thus, in case of criminal breach of trust, the offender is lawfully entrusted with the property, and he dishonestly misappropriated the same. Whereas, in case of cheating, the offender fraudulently or dishonestly induces a person by deceiving him to deliver any property. In such a situation, both the offences cannot co-exist simultaneously." 4. So far as section 506 I.P.C. and section 67a of I.T. Act are concerned, learned counsel for applicants submitted that the said sections has been fastened against the applicants coupled with sections 406 & 420 I.P.C. and as per narration of F.I.R. as well as the materials available on record, the same cannot be made out against the applicants. 5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for opposite party no.2 vehemently opposed the prayer as made in the application, but did not dispute the arguments as raised by learned counsel for applicants. 6. After hearing rival submissions extended by learned counsel for the parties as well as considering the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Delhi Race Club (supra), the arguments raised by learned counsel for applicants seems to be justified. 7. In view of aforementioned facts and circumstances, the entire proceedings initiated against the applicant in shape of Criminal Case No.24914 of 2023 (State vs. Robin and Others) arising out of Case Crime No.75 of 2022, under sections 420, 406 & 506 I.P.C. and section 66D of I.T. Act, P.S. Kamla Nagar, District- Agra, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra, including cognizance order dated 06.07.2023, is hereby quashed. 8. The instant application stands allowed accordingly. Order Date :- 18.8.2025 Saif Digitally signed by :- SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad