SANDHYA YADAV AND 3 OTHERS v. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
NA528/33884/2025 · 2025-10-05
Raj Beer Singh
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 92274 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 92274 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 33884 of 2025 Court No. - 71 HON'BLE RAJ BEER SINGH, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants 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 22.11.2023 as well as cognizance / summoning order dated 19.04.2024, of Case No. 6287 of 2024 (State Vs. Om Prakash Yadav and others), arising out of Case Crime No.175 of 2023, under Sections 420, 406 IPC, P.S.- Bhatni, District- Deoria, pending in the court of Civil Judge (S.D.) / F.T.C.- Ist/ A.C.J.M., Deoria. 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the first information report of this case has been lodged making false allegations. It is further submitted that by impugned order dated 19.04.2024 applicants have 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 19.04.2024 applicants have 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 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. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Kunwar Ajay Singh, Phool Singh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Sandhya Yadav And 3 Others .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s)
5. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned summoning order dated 19.04.2024, passed by the Civil Judge (S.D.) / F.T.C.- Ist/ A.C.J.M., Deoria 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. October 6, 2025 'SP'/- NA528 No. 33884 of 2025 2 (Raj Beer Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad