Criminal Case No. 2262 of 2025 · Supreme Court · 2025

be judged by the High Court. There can be no doubt that a complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. The High Court has, however, to see whether the dispute of a civil nature has been given colour of criminal offence. In such a situation, the High Court should not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings as held by this Court in Paramjeet Batra (supra) extracted above."

7. When we examine the facts of the present case in light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Randheer Singh (Supra), it appears that the allegation is not merely of committing default in repayment of the money borrowed from the opposite party no.2 bank, but the allegation is that the applicant had mortgaged a certain property with the bank and thereafter he sold away a part of the mortgaged property. The allegation against the applicant is that he obtained credit facility from the bank and thereafter misappropriated the same. This prima facie makes out a case of commission of criminal breach of trust as defined under Section 405 I.P.C. which is punishable under Section 406 I.P.C. Further allegation against the applicant is that he sold away a part of the mortgaged land without the mortgage having been redeemed, make out a case of cheating as defined under Section 415 I.P.C. and punishable under Section 420 I.P.C.

8. The learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. and others Vs. State of U.P. and others: (2024) 10 SCC 690 which has been followed in Rikhab Birani and another Vs. State of U.P. and another: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 823 in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the same set of allegation would not make out offences both under Section 406 I.P.C. and Section 420 I.P.C.

9. In the present case, the commission of offences of criminal breach of trust and cheating are not arising on the basis of same set of facts. The offence of criminal breach of truest is arising from misappropriation of credit facility availed by the applicant from the opposite party no.2-bank and the offence of cheating is being alleged on the basis of his having sold away a part of mortgaged property without redeeming the same. Therefore, as the offences under Section 405 I.P.C. and 415 I.P.C. are arising out of different sets of facts, the applicant can be tried for commission of both the offences.

10. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant had sought permission for selling away a part of the mortgaged property by sending an email to the bank and the concerned officer of the bank had orally granted permission to the applicant for selling away part of the mortgaged land. As the land has been sold away under the oral permission granted by the bank's officer the applicant has not committed any illegality in execution of the sale deed.

11. The banks and its authorities pass orders through written communications only and the allegation that the applicant had been orally permitted to sell away a part of the mortgaged property, cannot be accepted so as to make out a ground for quashing of the criminal proceedings against the applicant.

12. In view of foregoing discussions, I am of the view that the application lacks merit and the same is dismissed. . Order Date :- 1.7.2025 Ram. [Subhash Vidyarthi, J.] RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

be judged by the High Court. There can be no doubt that a complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. The High Court has, however, to see whether the dispute of a civil nature has been given colour of criminal offence. In such a situation, the High Court should not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings as held by this Court in Paramjeet Batra (supra) extracted above."

7. When we examine the facts of the present case in light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Randheer Singh (Supra), it appears that the allegation is not merely of committing default in repayment of the money borrowed from the opposite party no.2 bank, but the allegation is that the applicant had mortgaged a certain property with the bank and thereafter he sold away a part of the mortgaged property. The allegation against the applicant is that he obtained credit facility from the bank and thereafter misappropriated the same. This prima facie makes out a case of commission of criminal breach of trust as defined under Section 405 I.P.C. which is punishable under Section 406 I.P.C. Further allegation against the applicant is that he sold away a part of the mortgaged land without the mortgage having been redeemed, make out a case of cheating as defined under Section 415 I.P.C. and punishable under Section 420 I.P.C.

8. The learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. and others Vs. State of U.P. and others: (2024) 10 SCC 690 which has been followed in Rikhab Birani and another Vs. State of U.P. and another: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 823 in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the same set of allegation would not make out offences both under Section 406 I.P.C. and Section 420 I.P.C.

9. In the present case, the commission of offences of criminal breach of trust and cheating are not arising on the basis of same set of facts. The offence of criminal breach of truest is arising from misappropriation of credit facility availed by the applicant from the opposite party no.2-bank and the offence of cheating is being alleged on the basis of his having sold away a part of mortgaged property without redeeming the same. Therefore, as the offences under Section 405 I.P.C. and 415 I.P.C. are arising out of different sets of facts, the applicant can be tried for commission of both the offences.

10. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant had sought permission for selling away a part of the mortgaged property by sending an email to the bank and the concerned officer of the bank had orally granted permission to the applicant for selling away part of the mortgaged land. As the land has been sold away under the oral permission granted by the bank's officer the applicant has not committed any illegality in execution of the sale deed.

11. The banks and its authorities pass orders through written communications only and the allegation that the applicant had been orally permitted to sell away a part of the mortgaged property, cannot be accepted so as to make out a ground for quashing of the criminal proceedings against the applicant.

12. In view of foregoing discussions, I am of the view that the application lacks merit and the same is dismissed. . Order Date :- 1.7.2025 Ram. [Subhash Vidyarthi, J.] RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench