APHC010305072020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3521]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4889/2020 Between:

Tanneru Samba Siva Rao, and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)

AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S)

Others Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):

1. SODUM ANVESHA

2. SPL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR CID Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

1. SATYANARAYANA DHARA

2. SPL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR CID The Court made the following:

ORDER

The Criminal Petition 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 the proceedings against the Petitioners/Accused No.3 and 4 in Crime No.39 of 2020 on the file of the CID Police Station, A.P., Amaravathi, Mangalagiri registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘the I.P.C’).

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.

3. The petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 and the respondent No. 2 are present.

4. The 2^nd respondent, who was earlier working as Assistant General Manager, Bank of Baroda and is now retired, submits that he has no objection to compounding the offence. The respondent No. 1 registered a case against the petitioners and other persons for the offences punishable under Sections

420 and 406 read with Section 34 of ‘the IPC’.

5. In Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Crl.A.No.3114 of 2024 dated 23.08.2025 the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that the offences of criminal breach of trust and cheating cannot coexist simultaneously.

6. Further in N. Raghavender v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Crl.A.No.5 of 2010 dated 13.12.2021 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that prosecution had failed to prove charges under Section 409, 420, and 477A of ‘the I.P.C.,’ and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of ‘the Act.,’ on the ground that no financial loss was caused to the bank, or to any customer; no conspiracy was established; the bank official committed gross misconduct by misusing his position, by acting himself in dereliction of his duties, but there was no criminal misconduct fall under the ambit of Section 409, 420 and 477A of ‘the I.P.C’.

7. Furthermore, K. Bharathi Devi v. State of Telangana, (2024) 10 SCC 384 wherein at para No.34 it is held as under:

“34…It has been held that there are certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavor having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or a family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, the High Court would be justified in quashing the criminal proceedings, even if the offences have not been made compoundable.”

8. Section 406 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ deals with criminal breach of trust, which presupposes lawful entrustment of property followed by dishonest misappropriation or conversion. In contrast, Section 420 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ addresses cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, which requires deception at the inception of the transaction. Thus, while Section 406 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ arises from a breach of an existing fiduciary relationship, Section 420 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ is predicated upon fraudulent inducement at the very outset.

The two offences, therefore, operate in distinct spheres.

9. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the Criminal Petition is allowed, and the proceedings in Crime No.39 of 2020 on the file of the CID Police Station, A.P., Amaravathi, Mangalagiri, are hereby quashed.

As a sequel, Miscellaneous petiti