Allahabad High Court
M/S Sadbhav Engineering Ltd vs State Of U.P. And Another on 25 August, 2025
Author: Deepak Verma
Bench: Deepak Verma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:147043
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 10517 of 2025
Court No. - 72
HON'BLE DEEPAK VERMA, J.
1. Heard Sri Mangla Prasad Rai, assisted by Sri Uma Nath Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the applicant; Sri Manish Tiwari, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Aditya Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. The present application u/s 528 B.N.S.S. has been filed with prayer to quash the Charge Sheet dated 27.10.2024; cognizance and summoning order dated 11.02.2025 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar as well as entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.10447 of 2025 (State vs. Sadbhav Engineering Limited Company and others), arising out of Case Crime No.0076 of 2024, under Sections 406, 420 & 506 IPC, P.S. Swaroop Nagar, District Kanpur Nagar, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar.
3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Counsel for the applicant next submits that no offence under section 420 & 406 I.P.C. is made out and all proceeding initiated by learned magistrate is without application of judicial mind. Learned counsel for the applicant next submits that the applicant challenged FIR by filing Criminal Misc.Writ Petition No.10514 of 2024 (M/s Sadbhav Engineering Ltd. and others vs. State of U.P. and others) and this Court by order dated 20.06.2024 has passed the following orders:-
"1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Manish Tiwari, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Aditya Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent no.4 and learned A.G.A. for the State respondents.
2. The present writ petition has been preferred with the prayer to quash the impugned First Information Report dated 26.05.2024 registered as Case Crime No. 76 of 2024, under Sections 406, 420 & 506 I.P.C., P.S.- Swaroop Nagar, District- Central Commissionerate, Kanpur Nagar, and for a direction to the respondents not to take coercive action against the petitioners in pursuance of impugned First Information Report.
3. Although the prayer for quashing of FIR has been made, but without insisting on the same, only submission is that all alleged offences are punishable with imprisonment upto seven years, therefore, the police authorities are bound to follow the procedure laid down under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. The petitioners have been wrongly implicated and could not be arrested. Reliance has been placed on the judgement of Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 and Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar Vs. Union of India, Ministry of Law and Justice and others in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 73 of 2015 with Criminal Appeal No. 1265 of 2017 Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 156 of 2017 and in Satendra Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another (2022) 10 SCC 51 and co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court in Vimal Kumar & 3 others Vs. State of U.P. & 3 others in 2021 (2) ACR 1147.
4. We have gone through the impugned first information report and without interfering in the same, we are of the opinion that the guidelines framed by the Apex Court in the above noted judgement are equally applicable to the facts of the instant case.
5. Accordingly, the instant petition also stands disposed of in terms of the judgements as noted above."
4. Learned counsel for the applicant next submits that applicant assailed the order dated 20.06.2024 by filing Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.13341 of 2025 and the Apex Court by order dated 01.04.2025 passed the following order:-
"Delay condoned.
We have been informed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that the charge sheet has been filed subsequently which has also been put into challenge.
Learned counsel appearing the petitioner(s) would only submit that the contentions raised by the petitioner(s) before the High Court have not been considered and the impugned order has been passed by taking note of the facts involved in other case.
We only clarify that the impugned order will not stand in the way of filing of the subsequent petition by the petitioners. The same has to be decided on its own merits without being influenced by any of the observations made in the impugned order.
The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly disposed of.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of."
5. Now the applicant has filed this Application u/s 528 B.N.S.S. after submission of charge-sheet. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that in view of the Apex Court judgment, cognizance under sections 420 & 406 I.P.C. cannot run simultaneously and summoning by learned magistrate is without application of judicial mind. It is next submitted that proceedings under Sections 420 and 406 I.P.C. cannot run jointly in view of the judgment of Apex Court in Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2248.
6. Per contra, learned AGA and learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the submission raised by the counsel for the applicant but could not dispute that as per Apex Court judgement proceedings under Sections 420 and 406 I.P.C. cannot run jointly.
7. Considering the argument raised by applicant's counsel and perused the record. Since the trial court took cognizance and issued summon against the applicant under sections 420 & 406 I.P.C. jointly, in view of the Hon.Apex Court in the case of Delhi Race Club (supra) both proceedings cannot run simultaneously.
8. In view of the aforesaid judgement of Apex Court in Delhi Race Club (supra), the application is disposed of with direction that if the applicant moves discharge application within a period of four weeks from today, it is expected that the court concerned will consider and decide the same expeditiously within a period of four weeks, in accordance with law.
9. Till then, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant in the aforesaid case.
August 25, 2025
SKD
