C528/391/2026
2026 Latest Caselaw 1874 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

C528/391/2026 on 12 March, 2026

               Office Notes,
            reports, orders or
             proceedings or
No   Date                                   COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
              directions and
            Registrar's order
             with Signatures
                                 C528 No.391 of 2026
                                 Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.

Mr. Saurabh Kumar Pandey, Advocate for the applicant.

Mr. Pradeep Lohani, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.

2. An F.I.R. was initially lodged against the applicant under Sections 323, 420 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer found additional material and consequently added Sections 406 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code as well.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the complainant had allegedly advanced certain sums of money to the applicant, which were subsequently repaid by the applicant along with interest. However, it is contended that the present dispute pertains only to the alleged interest component of the amount already returned. It is further submitted that the last monetary transaction between the parties took place in the year 2019 and, therefore, the period prescribed for instituting a civil suit for recovery has already expired. According to the learned counsel, in order to circumvent the bar of limitation applicable to civil proceedings, respondent no.2 has resorted to initiating criminal proceedings by lodging the present F.I.R. It is further argued that, on the same set of facts and circumstances, the provisions of Sections 420 and 406 of the I.P.C. cannot simultaneously be invoked against the applicant, as the essential ingredients of the said offences are distinct and the allegations, even if taken at their face value, do not satisfy the statutory requirements to attract both provisions. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Delhi Race Club (1940) Limited & Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, reported in (2024) 10 SCC 690. Paragraph no.43 of the said judgment is reproduced below:

"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."

4. Issue notice to the respondent no.2, returnable at an early date.

5. List after service report is received. By that time, counter affidavit may be filed.

6. Considering the submission advanced by learned counsel for the applicant, it is directed that, till the next date of listing, further proceedings of Criminal Case No.429 of 2026 pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, shall remain stayed.

7. Stay application (I.A. No.1 of 2026) stands disposed of.

(Alok Mahra, J.) 12.03.2026 Arpan