CRM-M-37795-2026 (O&M) -:1:- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (149) CRM-M-37795-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision:15.07.2026 HARMESH KUMAR & ORS … Petitioners Versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR ... Respondents -.- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present:- Mr. Vipul Jindal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Jasjit Singh Rattu, DAG, Punjab. Mr. Anupam Singla, Advocate for respondent No.2. -.- VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J . (Oral) 1. The present petition has been instituted under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), read with Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the exercise of the inherent and extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court for quashing FIR No. 246 dated 16.11.2016, registered under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (corresponding to Sections 318(4), 316(2) and 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) at Police Station Sadar Dhuri, District Sangrur (Annexure P-6). 1.1. The petitioner has also sought quashing of the order dated 13.08.2025 (Annexure P-7) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.15 17:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-37795-2026 (O&M) -:2:- Class, Dhuri, whereby charges were framed against the petitioner, as well as the order dated 01.06.2026 (Annexure P-10) passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sangrur, affirming the said order framing charges. The principal contention advanced is that the simultaneous framing of charges under Sections 406 and 420 IPC (corresponding to Sections 316(2) and 318(4) of the BNS, 2023) is legally impermissible, the two offences being conceptually distinct and founded upon mutually inconsistent ingredients. 2. At the outset, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners fairly submitted that, in view of the order framing charges, the petitioners confine the present challenge only to the extent of seeking modification of the charge-sheet framed by the learned Trial Court. It is contended that the simultaneous framing of charges under Sections 406 and 420 IPC is contrary to the settled principles of criminal jurisprudence and are the antithesis of each other, inasmuch as the essential ingredients constituting the offences of criminal breach of trust and cheating are fundamentally distinct and, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, cannot coexist. It is argued that while an offence under Section 420 IPC postulates a dishonest or fraudulent intention existing at the very inception of the transaction, an offence under Section 406 IPC presupposes a lawful entrustment followed by subsequent dishonest misappropriation or conversion. The two offences, therefore, operate in distinct legal fields and are, in the factual matrix of the present case, mutually destructive of each other. In support of the aforesaid proposition, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Delhi Race Club v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 (1) GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.15 17:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-37795-2026 (O&M) -:3:- SCC (Cri) 281, and Arshad Neyaz Khan v. State of Jharkhand, 2025 (4) RCR (Criminal) 403. 3. Upon notice of motion being issued, Mr. Jasjit Singh Rattu, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, accepted notice on behalf of the respondent-State. Mr. Anupam Singla, Advocate, entered appearance on behalf of respondent No. 2. 4. Learned State counsel, duly assisted by learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2, opposed the petition and submitted that the impugned order framing charges does not warrant interference in the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. It was contended that at the stage of framing of charge, the Court is only required to ascertain whether a prima facie case is disclosed from the material collected during investigation, and that the precise nature of the offence ultimately made out against the accused is a matter to be determined upon appreciation of the evidence led during trial. It was, therefore, argued that the learned Trial Court would be competent to determine, at the appropriate stage, as to which of the alleged offences is ultimately established against the petitioners. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have carefully perused the pleadings, the impugned orders, the paper book and the material available on record with their able assistance. 6. Having bestowed thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and the material available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order framing charges cannot be sustained in its present form. It is a well-settled proposition of criminal GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.15 17:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-37795-2026 (O&M) -:4:- jurisprudence that the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (corresponding to Sections 316(2) and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) are founded upon distinct and mutually inconsistent legal ingredients. While an offence under Section 420 IPC contemplates dishonest or fraudulent inducement existing at the inception of the transaction, an offence under Section 406 IPC presupposes a lawful entrustment followed by subsequent dishonest misappropriation or conversion of the entrusted property. Consequently, where the factual foundation does not justify the simultaneous invocation of both provisions, the learned Trial Court is under a legal obligation to apply its judicial mind to the material placed before it and determine, on a prima facie assessment, which of the two offences is disclosed. 6.1. In the present case, the learned Trial Court has framed charges under both Sections 406 and 420 IPC without undertaking the requisite judicial exercise of examining whether the foundational ingredients of both offences could legally coexist on the same set of allegations. Such an approach is contrary to the settled principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Accordingly, the impugned order framing charges is set aside to the aforesaid extent, and the matter is remanded to the learned Trial Court for a fresh consideration on the question of charge. The learned Trial Court shall reconsider the matter independently, keeping in view the settled legal position governing the interplay between Sections 406 and 420 IPC, and thereafter frame an appropriate charge strictly in accordance with law by passing a reasoned order. GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.15 17:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-37795-2026 (O&M) -:5:- 7. It is, however, clarified that during the pendency of the proceedings before the Trial Court, certain prosecution evidence has already been recorded in the presence of the petitioners while they were facing the charges as originally framed. Since the proceedings conducted thus far cannot be said to have occasioned any prejudice to either party, the evidence already recorded shall continue to remain part of the judicial record and shall be available for consideration by the learned Trial Court at the appropriate stage, subject to the rights and contentions of the parties in accordance with law. The remand ordered herein shall, therefore, be confined only to the reconsideration of the question of framing of charge and shall not necessitate a de novo trial unless the learned Trial Court, for reasons to be recorded, considers such a course indispensable in the interest of justice. 8. In view of the fact that the principal controversy stands finally adjudicated by the present order, all pending miscellaneous applications, if any, arising out of or ancillary to the present proceedings shall also stand disposed of accordingly. No separate or further orders are required to be passed in respect thereof. ( VIRINDER AGGARWAL) 15.07.2026 JUDGE Gaurav Sorot Whether reasoned / speaking? Yes / No Whether reportable? Yes / No GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.15 17:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document