Court No. - 14 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3529 of 2025 Applicant :- Ankit Kumar Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Harish Chandra Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

1. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C/528 B.N.S.S has been preferred with the following main prayer:- "WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble court may graciously be pleased to quash the chargesheet dated 21.10.2020 as well as summoning order dated 01.03.2021 in Case no. 2261/2021, arising out of case crime no. 42/2020, under sections 420,406,504,506, I.P.C. Police station Dalmau, District Raebareli pending in the court of IInd Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)

Raebareli., in the interest of justice."

2. The brief facts of the case are that an F.I.R dated 18.02.2020 has been lodged by the respondent no. 2 alleging therein that the applicant has taken money by giving false promise of getting a job for the brother of the complainant outside the country.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the charge sheet against the applicant has been filed under Sections 504, 506, 406 and 420 IPC and the concerned court has taken cognizance and issued summon against the applicant without application of mind. As per the proposition of law settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another reported in 2024 10 SCC 690, Sections 406 and 420 I.P.C cannot go in the same breath. The relevant portion of the said judgment is being reproduced hereinbelow:-

"38. In our view, the plain reading of the complaint fails to spell out any of the aforesaid ingredients noted above. We may only say, with a view to clear a serious misconception of law in the mind of the police as well as the courts below, that if it is a case of the complainant that offence of criminal breach of trust as defined under Section 405 I.P.C, punishable under Section 406 I.P.C, is committed by the accused, then in the same breath it cannot be said that the accused has also committed the offence of cheating as defined and explained in Section 415 I.P.C, punishable under Section 420 I.P.C.

41. The distinction between mere breach of contract and the offence of criminal breach of trust and cheating is a fine one. In case of cheating, the intention of the accused at the time of inducement should be looked into which may be judged by a subsequent conduct, but for this, the subsequent conduct is not the sole test. Mere breach of contract cannot give rise to a criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right from the beginning of the transaction i.e. the time when the offence is said to have been committed. Therefore, it is this intention, which is the gist of the offence.

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 sufÏcient. 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.

55. It is high time that the police ofÏcers 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 I.P.C (now B.N.S, 2023) are not twins that they cannot survive without each other."

4. Learned A.G.A. has v