APHC010074802026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3521]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

MONDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1198/2026 Between:

Chippidi Yuvaraj ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S)

Others Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

1. P RAJESH BABU Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

1. B N PANDU RANGA VITTAL

2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 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 Petitioner/Accused in FIR No.66 of 2026 on the file of the Rajamahendravaram III Town Urban Police Station, East Godavari District registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 115(2) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’) read with 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for brevity ‘the SC and ST PoA Act’).

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

3. The allegations levelled against the petitioner by the 2^nd respondent are that the petitioner committed criminal breach of trust and also deception and also caused simple hurt followed by criminal intimidation. The 2^nd respondent alleges that the above alleged offences have been committed by the petitioner just based on the her community. However, cheating and criminal breach of trust would not go together.

4. 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.

5. 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’.

6. 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.”

7. 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.

8. As seen from the record, the alleged offences levelled against the Petitioner/Accused are punishable with imprisonme