High Court

3. The brief facts of the case are that the F.I.R. dated 24.04.2019 has been lodged by the Respondent No.2 against the applicant and his brother alleging therein that the applicant had taken part payment / sale consideration for sale of his land in favour of respondent / complainant. When the complainant asked for execution of the sale deed by taking balance amount through cheque, he started compelling / pressurizing the respondent / complainant to give money in cash in place of cheque.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the dispute is commercial in nature, which has been given a colour of criminal case. If the Respondent No.2 is aggrieved, she has a remedy to file a suit for recovery of money and the registration of criminal case is not a remedy. In support of his submission, he has relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Paramjeet Batra vs. State of Uttrakhand (2013) 11 SCC 673; Randheer Singh Vs. State of U.P. (2021) 14 SCC 626; State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 and Sachin Garg vs State Of U.P. (2024) SCC Page 82. He further submitted that co-accused, namely, Mohd. Islam (Arrayed as Islam), who is brother of the present applicant, has already been granted interim relief by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 06.05.2025 passed in Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No.3478 of 2025.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the charge sheet against the applicant has been filed under Section 406 and 420 IPC, which cannot go in the same breath as per the proposition of law settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another reported in (2024) 10 SCC 690. The relevant portion of the said judgment is being reproduced hereinbelow:- "38. In our view, the plain reading of the complaint fails to spell out any of the aforesaid ingredients noted above. We may only say, with a view to clear a serious misconception of law in the mind of the police as well as the courts below, that if it is a case of the complainant that offence of criminal breach of trust as defined under Section 405IPC, punishable under Section 406 IPC, is committed by the accused, then in the same breath it cannot be said that the accused has also committed the offence of cheating as defined and explained in Section 415 IPC, punishable under Section 420IPC.

41. The distinction between mere breach of contract and the offence of criminal breach of trust and cheating is a fine one. In case of cheating, the intention of the accused at the time of inducement should be looked into which may be judged by a subsequent conduct, but for this, the subsequent conduct is not the sole test. Mere breach of contract cannot give rise to a criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right from the beginning of the transaction i.e. the time when the offence is said to have been committed. Therefore, it is this intention, which is the gist of the offence.

43. There is a distinction between criminal breach of trust and cheating. For cheating, criminal intention is necessary at the time of making a false or misleading representation i.e. since inception. In criminal breach of trust, mere proof of entrustment is sufficient. Thus, in case of criminal breach of trust, the offender is lawfully entrusted with the property, and he dishonestly misappropriated the same. Whereas, in case of cheating, the offender fraudulently or dishonestly induces a person by deceiving him to deliver any property. In such a situation, both the offences cannot co-exist simultaneously.

55. 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 vis-a-vis 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 IPC (now BNS, 2023) are not twins that they cannot survive without each other."

6. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the application but he is unable to dispute the settled proposition of law as relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant i.e. Section 406 IPC and Section 420 IPC cannot be proceeded simultaneously.

7. Instant matter requires consideration.

8. Issue notice to the respondent no. 2.

9. Steps be taken within seven working days.

10. Connect and list this case alongwith Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No.3478 of 2025.

11. Office is directed to submit service report by the next date of listing.

12. Till the next date of listing, the proceedings of the aforesaid case, as far as it is related to the present applicant, shall remain stayed. (Om Prakash Shukla,J.) Order Date :- 3.7.2025 Saurabh

3. The brief facts of the case are that the F.I.R. dated 24.04.2019 has been lodged by the Respondent No.2 against the applicant and his brother alleging therein that the applicant had taken part payment / sale consideration for sale of his land in favour of respondent / complainant. When the complainant asked for execution of the sale deed by taking balance amount through cheque, he started compelling / pressurizing the respondent / complainant to give money in cash in place of cheque.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the dispute is commercial in nature, which has been given a colour of criminal case. If the Respondent No.2 is aggrieved, she has a remedy to file a suit for recovery of money and the registration of criminal case is not a remedy. In support of his submission, he has relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Paramjeet Batra vs. State of Uttrakhand (2013) 11 SCC 673; Randheer Singh Vs. State of U.P. (2021) 14 SCC 626; State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 and Sachin Garg vs State Of U.P. (2024) SCC Page 82. He further submitted that co-accused, namely, Mohd. Islam (Arrayed as Islam), who is brother of the present applicant, has already been granted interim relief by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 06.05.2025 passed in Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No.3478 of 2025.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the charge sheet against the applicant has been filed under Section 406 and 420 IPC, which cannot go in the same breath as per the proposition of law settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another reported in (2024) 10 SCC 690. The relevant portion of the said judgment is being reproduced hereinbelow:- "38. In our view, the plain reading of the complaint fails to spell out any of the aforesaid ingredients noted above. We may only say, with a view to clear a serious misconception of law in the mind of the police as well as the courts below, that if it is a case of the complainant that offence of criminal breach of trust as defined under Section 405IPC, punishable under Section 406 IPC, is committed by the accused, then in the same breath it cannot be said that the accused has also committed the offence of cheating as defined and explained in Section 415 IPC, punishable under Section 420IPC.

41. The distinction between mere breach of contract and the offence of criminal breach of trust and cheating is a fine one. In case of cheating, the intention of the accused at the time of inducement should be looked into which may be judged by a subsequent conduct, but for this, the subsequent conduct is not the sole test. Mere breach of contract cannot give rise to a criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right from the beginning of the transaction i.e. the time when the offence is said to have been committed. Therefore, it is this intention, which is the gist of the offence.

43. There is a distinction between criminal breach of trust and cheating. For cheating, criminal intention is necessary at the time of making a false or misleading representation i.e. since inception. In criminal breach of trust, mere proof of entrustment is sufficient. Thus, in case of criminal breach of trust, the offender is lawfully entrusted with the property, and he dishonestly misappropriated the same. Whereas, in case of cheating, the offender fraudulently or dishonestly induces a person by deceiving him to deliver any property. In such a situation, both the offences cannot co-exist simultaneously.

55. 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 vis-a-vis 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 IPC (now BNS, 2023) are not twins that they cannot survive without each other."

6. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the application but he is unable to dispute the settled proposition of law as relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant i.e. Section 406 IPC and Section 420 IPC cannot be proceeded simultaneously.

7. Instant matter requires consideration.

8. Issue notice to the respondent no. 2.

9. Steps be taken within seven working days.

10. Connect and list this case alongwith Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No.3478 of 2025.

11. Office is directed to submit service report by the next date of listing.

12. Till the next date of listing, the proceedings of the aforesaid case, as far as it is related to the present applicant, shall remain stayed. (Om Prakash Shukla,J.) Order Date :- 3.7.2025 Saurabh