High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:142304 Court No. - 74 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 13892 of 2024 Applicant :- Badar Ali Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- A.C.Srivastava,Subham Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Heard Sri A.C. Srivastava, learned counsel for applicant and perused the record. 2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 27662 of 2023 (State vs. Badar Ali and another) as well as summoning order dated 26.02.2024, under Sections 406, 420, 468, 120B IPC, Police Station Lohiya Nagar, District Meerut. 3. Relevant part of impugned order dated 26.02.2024 is reproduced hereinafter: "ससुनना तथना पररिवनाद कना अवललोकन ककयना। पररिवनाददी नने अपनने बयनान मम कथन ककयना हहै कक यसुवना सनेवना सकमकत ककी कमनेटदी मम वह कलोषनाध्यक्ष थना जब कक कवपक्षदी बदरि अलदी सकचिव पद परि कनायररित थना , सकमकत सकचिव बदरि अलदी कने दनारिना वषर 2014 मम चिनेररिटनेकबल अस्पतनाल कने ननाम सने रिसदीदने जनारिदी ककी गयदी कवपक्षदी बदरि अलदी कलो अस्पतनाल कने ननाम परि एक करिलोड रूपयने सने उपरि ककी रिनाकशि व लगभग पचिनास लनाख रूपयने ककी कनमनारण सनामगदी पनाप्त हहई। जब कक उक्त सकमकत ककी मनान्यतना जनवरिदी 2019 मम समनाप्त हलो चिसुककी थदी, उक्त पहैसना ककसदी भदी बबक खनातने मम जमना नहदी ककयना गयना , उसकने दनारिना कई बनारि इस कक त्य कना कवरिलोध ककयना गयना , परिन्तसु बदरि अलदी व उसकना सहयलोगदी ससंस्थना कने कलोष मम गबन व हनेरिनाफने रिदी करितने रिहने। उक्त सकमकत कना गठन 2017 मम ककयना गयना थना, जजसमम सकचिव अध्यक्ष कलोषनाध्यक्ष कने अलनावना दस अन्य सदस्य थने, पक्षकनारिदी मम आपस मम कववनाद हलोनने कने कनारिण इस ससंस्थनान कलो मन्ससूख करिनायने जनानने हनेतसु एक ददीवनानदी वनाद-ददीवनानदी न्यनायनालय मम यलोजजत ककयना हहआ हहै। ससंस्थना कने ननाम सने एककत्रित धन सने कनकमरत तदीन मसंजजलना इमनारित कलो मनेरिठ कवकनास पनाजधकरिण दनारिना अवहैध मनानतने हहए ध्वस्त ककयना जना चिसुकना हहै। इसकने अलनावना बदरि अलदी नने कवपक्षदी ससंख्यना दलो कने सनाथ कमलकरि उक्त कबललडसंग कना मलबना कवपक्षदी कलो उठवना कदयना , औरि उक्त धनरिनाकशि कलो खनातने मम जमना नहदी ककयना। पररिवनाददी कने अनसुसनारि इस पकनारि कवपक्षदी नने फमर पपत्रित्रों कने आधनारि परि कनायर करितने हहए ससंस्थना कना पहैसना छल सने हडप जलयना हहै जजसकना सहयलोग कवपक्षदी ससंख्यना दलो दनारिना ककयना गयना हहै। पररिवनाददी ककी ओरि सने धनारिना 202 दसं०प०ससं० ममौहम्मद अतदीब व ममौ० यनासदीन कना बयनान करिनायना गयना हहै इसकने अलनावना वनाददी पक्ष ककी ओरि सने कवपक्षदी बदरि अलदी व नफकीस मजलक कने कवरूद्ध दजर मसुकदमत्रों ककी बनाबत पपत्रि दनाजखल ककयने गयने हब। पररिवनाददी ककी ओरि सने अपनने कथन कने समथरन मम पलनेखदीय पपत्रि भदी पस्तसुत ककयने गयने हहै। इसकने अलनावना कवपक्षदीगण कने कवरूद्ध दजर कवकभन्न मनामललो ककी ससूचिदी व छनायना पकतयनासं पस्तसुत ककी गयदी हहै। इस स्तरि परि पररिवनाददी ककी ओरि सने जलो सनाक्ष्य पस्तसुत ककयना गयना हहै उसकने आधनारि परि कवपक्षदीगण कने कवरूद्ध धनारिना 406, 420 468, एवसं 120 बदी भना०दसं०ससं० कने तहत पथम दृष्टयना मनामलना बनतना पतदीत हलोतना हहै। अततः कवपक्षदीगण उक्त धनारिनाओसं कने तहत आहहत ककयने जनानने यलोग्य हहै। आदनेशि कवपक्षदीगण बदरि अलदी व नफकीस मजलक पलो० अमन कनान्टट हैक्टरि कलो धनारिना 406, 420, 468 एवसं 120 बदी भना०दसं०ससं० कने कवचिनारिण हनेतसु जररियने समन तलब ककयना जनातना हहै। पररिवनाददी पहैरिवदी अनद्र सप्तनाह उभय पकनारि सने करिम। गवनाह ससूचिदी दनाजखल करिम। तत्पश्चिनात अकभयसुक्त कने कवरूद्ध समन कदननासंक 01.04.2024 कने जलए जनारिदी हलो।" 4. On basis of above referred impugned order, I find merit in the argument of learned counsel for applicant that in the light of judgment passed by Supreme Court in Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Anr., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2248 on the same set of facts offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC cannot go simultaneously. This Court has also followed the aforesaid judgment in Smt. Sunita Khanna vs. State of U.P. and another, Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:139058 and relevant part thereof is reproduced hereinafter: “In the aforesaid circumstances, I find merit in the argument of learned counsel for applicants that case of applicants are squarely covered from Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. (supra) and relevant paragraphs thereof are reproduced hereinafter :- "41. Before we close this matter, we would like to say something as regards the casual approach of the courts below in cases like the one at hand. The Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) was the official Criminal Code in the Republic of India inherited from the British India after independence. The IPC came into force in the sub-continent during the British rule in 1862. The IPC remained in force for almost a period of 162 years until it was repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita ("BNS") in December 2023 which came into effect on 1st July 2024. It is indeed very sad to note that even after these many years, the courts have not been able to understand the fine distinction between criminal breach of trust and cheating. 42. When dealing with a private complaint, the law enjoins upon the magistrate a duty to meticulously examine the contents of the complaint so as to determine whether the offence of cheating or criminal breach of trust as the case may be is made out from the averments made in the complaint. The magistrate must carefully apply its mind to ascertain whether the allegations, as stated, genuinely constitute these specific offences. In contrast, when a case arises from a FIR, this responsibility is of the police - to thoroughly ascertain whether the allegations levelled by the informant indeed falls under the category of cheating or criminal breach of trust. Unfortunately, it has become a common practice for the police officers to routinely and mechanically proceed to register an FIR for both the offences i.e. criminal breach of trust and cheating on a mere allegation of some dishonesty or fraud, without any proper application of mind. 43. 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 viz-a-viz 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 the IPC (now BNS, 2023) are not twins that they cannot survive without each other." In the aforesaid circumstances, taking note of above submissions of learned counsel for applicants and above referred paragraphs of Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. and Ors. (supra), this Court is of considered opinion that both Sections 420 and 406 I.P.C. cannot run together, therefore, impugned order dated 06.04.2019 passed in Complaint Case No.541 of 2019, (Smt. Ranjeet Kaur Vs. Gaurav Khanna and others), under Sections 420 and 406 I.P.C. Police Station- Govind Nagar, Disrict- Kanpur Nagar. is set aside and matter is remitted back to learned Trial to pass fresh order, in accordance with law.” 5. In aforesaid circumstances, since impugned order dated 26.02.2024, referred above, in the teeth of judgment passed by Supreme Court in Delhi Race Club (supra) and this Court’s judgment in Smt. Sunita Khanna (supra), therefore, it is set aside. 6. Since this order is passed without issuing notice to Opposite Party No. 2, therefore, matter is remitted back to Trial Court concerned to pass fresh order in accordance with law after taking note of above referred judgments as well as observations made in the present case and after hearing complainant expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from today, if there is no legal impediment. 7. Registrar (Compliance) to take steps. Order Date :- 3.9.2024 AK