IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA

th

ON THE 27 OF JANUARY, 2026 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 1953 of 2026 UMESH CHANDRA BANSAL Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

Mr. Sanjay Gupta - Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Harish Sharma Dy. Govt. Advocate for respondent/State.

ORDER The present petition under Section 528 of the BNSS has been filed against the order dated 03.06.2025, whereby, on a complaint filed by the complainant, the Trial Court took cognizance against the petitioner under Sections 420 and 409 of the IPC.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant filed a complaint on 08.03.2025, alleging that in 2018, Umesh Bansal (the petitioner/accused), acting as the proprietor of 'Kanhaiyalal and Sons,' committed cheating and criminal breach of trust. It is alleged that the petitioner induced the complainant and others by promising to secure government contracts and form a partnership business. Having gained the complainant's trust, the applicant deceived him into handing over money on 12.07.2018, under the false pretext of executing a partnership deed. Based on this information, F.I.R. No. 61/2025 was registered at Police Station Porsa, Tehsil Ambah, on

08.03.2025, for offences under Sections 420 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Counsel for the petitioner contends that since the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 came into force on 01.07.2024, any F.I.R. registered on or after that date (in this case, 08.03.2025) must be governed by the new law. It is argued that the prosecution's reliance on the Indian Penal Code (IPC) is legally flawed. The petitioner further submits that the charge-sheet fails to specify a definitive 'date of offence.

4. It is contended that in cases of cheating and criminal breach of trust, the cause of action arises only when the complainant demands the return of property and is met with a refusal. Since the complainant allegedly realized the non-return of funds only in 2025, the offence must be deemed to have occurred in 2025, thereby mandating the application of Sections 316(5) and

318(4) of the BNS instead of Sections 409 and 420 of the IPC.

5. While Section 409 of the IPC is triable by a Court of Session, the corresponding Section 316(5) of the BNS is triable by a Magistrate of the First Class. In such circumstances, counsel argues that the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Ambah lacks the jurisdiction to conduct the trial. It is, therefore, prayed that the matter be transferred to the Court of the concerned Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) for want of jurisdiction and that the impugned order be quashed.

6. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State submits that the petitioner/accused harbored the intention to deceive at the very inception, specifically at the time of receiving funds in 2018; therefore, the date of the alleged deception is in the year 2018. It is further argued that any offence committed between the year 2018 and 30th June 2024 must be registered and tried under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and not the BNS.

7. The Prosecutor further contends that the petitioner/accused has been appearing before the various courts since the filing of the charge-sheet, first before the Magistrate and subsequently before the Court of Session following committal. It is submitted that the petitioner failed to raise any jurisdictional objections before those authorities at the earliest opportunity. Consequently, it is argued that the present petition is a dilatory tactic intended to cause unnecessary delay, and is therefore liable to be dismissed.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record appended thereto.

9. From a perusal of the record, it is an admitted fact that both parties entered into a business relationship in the year 2018. During the course of this relationship, certain transactions were executed between the parties. Upon the petitioner's refusal to return payments to the complainant, a comp