Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC cannot co-exist in the same transaction; criminal breach of trust and cheating are distinct offences requiring different elements of fraud.

JUDGMENT :

PURNENDU SINGH, J

1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners; learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned APP for the State.

2. The present application has been filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing of the order taking cognizance dated 18.12.2015 in connection with Saur Bazar P.S. Case No.60 of 2015, whereby cognizance has been taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Saharsa under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. It is alleged by the informant/complainant that she negotiated with the petitioner No. 1 for the purchase of 01 katha of land and for that she paid a sum of Rupees 80,000/- to the petitioner No. 3 and a jarbaiynanama (Agreement for sale) was prepared, and it was agreed that after getting the rest Rupees 10,000/- she will execute the sale deed in her favour. However it has been alleged that even after repeated request and pleader's notice the petitioners allegedly refused to execute the sale deed. She further alleged that the khata of the land in question has been opened in the name of the Government of Bihar, thereafter a Panchayat was also convened but the petitioners allegedly refused to obey the Panchayat. It is further alleged that on 22.09.2014 when the informant along with her husband and son went to the house of the petitioner No. 1 and requested to execute the sale deed, on which, all the accused persons allegedly abused and assaulted them and it is alleged that the petitioner No. 2 pointed a three Not upon her and petitioner No. 4 thrown her on the ground and snatched a silver locket from her neck. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, the police instituted and lodged Saur Bazar Police Station Case No. 60/15 dated 12.3.15, under sections 341, 323, 354, 379, 406, 504, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the informant of the case herself has committed fraud in connivance with her son. In fact, the petitioner No. 1 took some loan from the informant, for which she had taken her finger print over a plain paper and the said paper was subsequently used for preparing forged Jarbaiyana. He further submitted that the petitioners are, in fact, the real victim and no offence is made out against them. The informant/complainant to settle her pending civil dispute with the petitioners filed the present criminal case which amounts to abuse of process of law. He further submitted that in view of the dispute apparently of a civil nature, the learned Court Below in a most mechanical manner without applying his judicial mind has taken cognizance against the petitioners under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code on the basis of the final form/chargesheet.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.2 submitted that the allegation levelled against the petitioners in the F.I.R. is specific against them and fulfills the ingredients of Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, as such, the present quashing application is fit to be dismissed.

6. Heard the parties.

7. The present application was heard on 04.09.2025 and interim protection was granted to the petitioners after hearing the parties. On the basis of the allegation made in the F.I.R. / complaint, the police upon investigation submitted chargesheet against the petitioners under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, on which basis, cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate Saharsa, under and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

8. A plain and careful reading of the foregoing observations makes it clear that the offences punishable under Sections