HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 28366 of 2025 Court No. - 77 HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Mohan Kant Baghel, learned counsel for applicant and learned AGA for the State. 2. Present application has been preferred with the prayer to quash the chargesheet dated 08.08.2024 and cognizance and summoning order dated 21.02.2025 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad in Case No.2969 of 2025 (State Vs. Saddam), arising out of Case Crime no. 286 of 2023, under Section 420, 406, 506 IPC and Section 66-D of I.T. Act, P.S.- Rasoolpur, District Firozabad. 3. Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of applicant has challenged the chargesheet dated 08.08.2024 and cognizance and summoning order dated 21.02.2025 on several other grounds inter-alia precisely on the ground that Sections 420 and 406 IPC cannot go together in the same breath as per the proposition of law settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another reported in 2024 10 SCC 690. The relevant portion of the said judgment is being reproduced hereinbelow:- "38. In our view, the plain reading of the complaint fails to spell out any of the aforesaid ingredients noted above. We may only say, with a view to clear a serious misconception of law in the mind of the police as well as the courts below, that if it is a case of the complainant that offence of criminal breach of trust as defined under Section 405 IPC, punishable under Section 406 IPC, is committed by the accused, then in the same breath it cannot be said that the accused has also committed the offence Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anil Kumar Srivastava (Senior Adv.), Mohan Kant Baghel, Pawan Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Saddam .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) of cheating as defined and explained in Section 415IPC, punishable under Section 420IPC. 41. 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. 43. 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. 55. 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 vis-vis 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 IPC (now BNS, 2023) are not twins that they cannot survive without each other." 4. On the other hand, the learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer sought through the instant application but unable to dispute the settled proposition of law as relied upon by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for applicant. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record of the case and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Delhi Race Club (Supra), it is crystal clear that both the sections i.e. Sections 420 and 406 IPC cannot go in the same breath. In sofar as section 506 I.P.C. and section 66-D of I.T. Act are concerned, the same have been fastened against the applicant in connection with Sections 406 and 420 I.P.C, and as such, chargesheet dated 08.08.2024 and cognizance and summoning NA528 No. 28366 of 2025 2 order dated 21.02.2025 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad in Case No.2969 of 2025 (State Vs. Saddam), arising out of Case Crime no. 286 of 2023, under Section 420, 406, 506 IPC and Section 66-D of I.T. Act, P.S.- Rasoolpur, District Firozabad, are hereby quashed. 6. Accordingly, the instant application stands allowed. September 12, 2025 Vivek Kr. NA528 No. 28366 of 2025 3 (Saurabh Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad