Both cheating and criminal breach of trust cannot coexist under the same factual scenario due to their distinct legal requirements.

ORDER :

Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J.

1. The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS ’), seeking to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.4 on bail in Crime No.103 of 2025 of Nagayalanka Police Station, Krishna District, registered against the Petitioner/Accused No.4 herein for the offence punishable under Sections 409 and 420 read with 34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (for brevity ‘the IPC’).

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent. She was falsely implicated in this case. She is a law-abiding citizen. She has not committed any offence. She has got fixed abode. She would abide by any condition which this Court deems fit to enlarge her on bail, and it is urged to allow the petition.

3. Per contra, Ms.P.Akhila Naidu, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that a total amount of Rs.59.17 lakhs was swindled by all the accused, including the petitioner. An amount of Rs.8,95,561/- was transferred to the personal account of the petitioner by Accused No.3. From the personal account of the petitioner, a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- was thereafter transferred to the account of Accused No.3. It is therefore urged to dismiss the petition, as the investigation is at progressive stage.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.

5. On perusal of the record, the petitioner is a female aged about 26 years. She is an outsourcing employee working at the MPDO office, Nagayalanka. The petitioner has been suffering from kidney infection disease. An amount of Rs.8,95,561/- was transferred to the personal account of the petitioner/Accused No.4. From the personal account of the petitioner, an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- was transferred to the account of Accused No.3. The allegation against the petitioner is that she committed offences under Sections 409 and 420 read with Section 34 of ‘the IPC’.

6. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. v. State of U.P.,, (2024) 10 SCC 690 at paragraph Nos.44 & 49 held as under:

“44. At the most, the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate could have issued process for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC i.e. cheating but in any circumstances no case of criminal breach of trust is made out. The reason being that indisputably there is no entrustment of any property in the case at hand. It is not even the case of the complainant that any property was lawfully entrusted to the appellants and that the same has been dishonestly misappropriated. The case of the complainant is plain and simple. He says that the price of the goods sold by him has not been paid. Once there is a sale, Section 406 IPC goes out of picture. According to the complainant, the invoices raised by him were not cleared. No case worth the name of cheating is also made out.

49. From the aforesaid, there is no manner of any doubt whatsoever that in case of sale of goods, the property passes to the purchaser from the seller when the goods are delivered. Once the property in the goods passes to the purchaser, it cannot be said that the purchaser was entrusted with the property of the seller. Without entrustment of property, there cannot be any criminal breach of trust. Thus, prosecution of cases on charge of criminal breach of trust, for failure to pay the consideration amount in case of sale of goods is flawed to the core. There can be civil remedy for the non-payment of the consideration amount, but no criminal case will be maintainable for it. [See : Lalit Chaturvedi v. State of U.P. [Lalit Chaturvedi v. State of U.P., (2024) 12 SCC 483 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 171] and Mideast Integrated Steels Ltd.