Criminal breach of trust and cheating are distinct offences that cannot co-exist under the same factual circumstances, necessitating compliance with procedural law during investigations.

ORDER:

Y.LAKSHMANA RAO, J.

Criminal Petition Nos.381, 386, 747 and 888 of 2026 are heard and disposed of by this common order, though they arise out of different crimes. The petitioners/accused in the respective crimes are different, however, the complainants/respondents are one and the same in all the cases.

2. The Criminal Petition No.381 of 2026 has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C.,’)/ Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS ’) seeking to quash proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused No.2in Cr.No.38 of 2022 on the file of the CID Police Station, Mangalagiri, Guntur District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 420 , 403 and 409 read with 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘the IPC ’) and Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for brevity, ‘the P.C Act’). 3. The Criminal Petition No.386 of 2026 has been filed under of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’/ of ‘the ’ seeking to quash proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused No.2 in Cr.No.40 of 2022 on the file of the CID Police Station, Mangalagiri, Guntur District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under , 403 and 409 read with 120-B of ‘the ’ and (2) of ‘the P.C Act’.

4. The Criminal Petition Nos.747 and 888 of 2026 have been filed under Section 482 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’/ Section 528 of ‘the BNSS ’ seeking to quash proceedings against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4in Cr.No.21 of 2022 on the file of the CID Police Station, Mangalagiri, Guntur District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 420 , 403 and 409 read with 120-B of ‘the IPC ’ and Section 13 (2) of ‘the P.C Act’.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.

6. As seen from the record, the petitioners, along with bank officials and the approved valuer, allegedly entered into a criminal conspiracy to dishonestly obtain agricultural loans from the State Bank of India, Ganapavaram Branch, under the Kisan Credit Card/Agri Asset Backed Loan Scheme for pisciculture by suppressing prior loans on the same leased fish tanks, enabling multiple financing, inflating collateral value, and diverting loan amounts, thereby causing wrongful loss to the bank and wrongful gain to themselves, attracting offences under Sections 420 , 403, 409 read with 120-B of ‘the I.P.C.,’& Section 13 (2) of ‘the P.C Act’.

7. 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 420IPC 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 406IPC 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