PREM DUTT PACHAURI AND 6 OTHERS v. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
NA528/41817/2025 · 2026-09-27
Madan Pal Singh
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 10231 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 10231 (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. - 41817 of 2025 Court No. - 81 HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.
1. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that he has served the mentioned slip upon the learned counsel for the applicants, who has refused to accept the same. 2. Heard Sri Mool Chandra Maurya, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 3. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed filed by the appellants for quashing the charge sheet dated 23.01.2023 alongwith impugned cognizance order dated 05.07.2023 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh in Case No.32721 of 2023, under Sections 406, 420, 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station Banna Devi, District Aligarh which is originally arises out of Case Crime No.556 of 2021. 4. It has been fairly submitted by learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that the applicants were summoned for offence under Sections 420 & 406 IPC 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, the 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. 5. Perusal of record shows that by impugned order, the applicants have been summoned 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 the offence of cheating viz-a-viz criminal breach of trust are independent and distinct and thus, the same cannot exist simultaneously in same set of facts and that they are antithetical to each other. Thus, it is clear that impugned Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mrityunjay Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Mool Chandra Maurya Prem Dutt Pachauri And 6 Others .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s)
order is not in accordance with law. 6. In view of the aforesaid, impugned order dated 05.07.2023 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the court concerned to pass an order on the point of summoning afresh, expeditiously in accordance with law. 7. The instant application is disposed of in above terms.
September 28, 2026 Ajeet NA528 No. 41817 of 2025 2 (Madan Pal Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- AJEET KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad