HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2558 of 2026 Court No. - 51 HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 and Sri Acharya Rajesh Tripathi, learned A.G.A for the State as also perused the record. 2. The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(1) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred to allow the present criminal appeal and to quash the cognizance/summoning order dated 07.12.2024 well as non bailable warrant dated 18.02.2026 and charge sheet dated 21.11.2024 and the entire proceeding of Session Case No. 1127 of 2024 (State Vs. Paras Nath Patel) arising out of Case Crime No. 434 of 2024 Under Section 419, 420, 406, 504 I.P.C. and Section 3 (1) (द), 3(1)(4) and 3(2) (Va) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Sarnath, District Varanasi. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned trial court has taken cognizance against him simultaneously for offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. Hence, the impugned order taking cognizance against the appellant for both offences is illegal and liable to be set aside. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the judgment in Delhi Race Club (1940) Limited and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, (2024) 10 SCC 690. 4. Learned AGA and learned counsel for the informant submitted that offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC are entirely different. However, it is not always the case that both sections cannot be invoked simultaneously. There may be circumstances where different transactions, carried out in different manners, take place as part of the incident. Such different transactions may result in the commission of different offences. Hence, it cannot be submitted at this stage that offences under both sections against Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Anoop Kumar, Rajesh Kumar Patel Counsel for Respondent(s) : Swarn Lata Suman, G.A. Paras Nath Patel @ Paras Nath .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) the appellant are not sustainable. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Learned counsel for the appellant has conceded to the fact that charges in the case have not yet been framed. In light of the submissions, this Court is of the view that the plea of the appellant that both offences are not sustainable against him can be raised at the time of framing of charges. The learned trial court is also directed to consider the plea of the appellant at the time of framing of charges. The learned trial court shall examine the allegations against the appellant and then decide whether charges against him could be framed either under Section 406 or Section 420 IPC, or under both sections. 6. The appeal is disposed of. March 19, 2026 Ujjawal CRLA No. 2558 of 2026 2 (Anil Kumar-X,J.) Digitally signed by :- UJJAWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad