Allahabad High Court
Ramlal ( In Charge Sheet Ramlal Bank ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. ... on 21 November, 2025
Author: Rajeev Singh
Bench: Rajeev Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:76195
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9206 of 2025
Ramlal ( In Charge Sheet Ramlal Bank Manager )
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Ramakar Shukla, Durgesh Kumar Awasthi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 14
HON'BLE RAJEEV SINGH, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.
2. This application has been filed for quashing the charge sheet dated 20.03.2023 as well as summoning order dated 15.05.2023 passed in Criminal Case No. 1503 of 2023, arising out of F.I.R. No. 500 of 2022, under Sections 406, 409, 420, 34, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., P.S. Mohmmadpur Khala, District Barabanki and its entire proceedings.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the investigation of the case in question has been conducted in mechanical manner and the Investigating Officer submitted the charge sheet under Sections 406, 409, 420, 34, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. It is vehemently submitted that the trial for the offence of cheating as well as criminal breach of trust cannot run together. Placing reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr., (2024) 10 SCC 690 and Arshad Neyaz Khan Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2058, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned charge sheet is liable to be quashed.
4. Learned A.G.A. opposes the prayer of the applicant and submits there is no illegality in the order passed by the trial court. However, he does not dispute on the legal pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. and Arshad Neyaz Khan (supra).
5. Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and going through the contents of the application, F.I.R. as well as other relevant documents, it is evident that initially, the F.I.R. was lodged under Sections 406, 409, 420, 34, 506 I.P.C. and after investigation, charge sheet was submitted by the Investigating Officer against the applicant-Ramlal, Mohd. Ajaharuddin and Vinay Shukla for the offences under Sections 34, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. and against rest of the accused namely, Anil Kumar and Shiv Om Mishra @ Monu Mishra, the charge sheet has been filed for the offences under Sections 34, 406, 420 467, 468, 471 I.P.C.
6. The controversy that the trial for the offences of cheating as well as criminal breach of trust cannot run together has already been decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. (supra). Relevant portions of the judgment (paragraphs 55 and 59) are as under.
"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 IPS (now BNS, 2023) are not twins that they cannot survive without each other.
59. We direct the Registry to send one copy each of this judgment to the Principal Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice, Union of India and also to the Principal Secretary, Home Department, Union of India."
7. However, in the present case, after obtaining opinion of the officials of Prosecution department, charge sheet has been filed by the Investigating Officer for the offences under Sections 406, 409, 420, 34, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C.
8. In view of above facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that the impugned charge sheet as well as cognizance order are liable to be set aside and are hereby quashed.
9. The application stands allowed.
10. Trial court is directed to transmit the entire case diary along with police report to Superintendent of Police, Barabanki, forthwith. Superintendent of Police, Barabanki is also directed to ensure that the police report in the crime in question be again submitted by the competent authority, taking into consideration the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. (supra).
11. Office is directed to communicate this order to the court concerned as well as Superintendent of Police, Barabanki for necessary compliance, forthwith.
(Rajeev Singh,J.)
November 21, 2025
VKS
