# Amar Singh & Anr v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2026) 4 ILRA 954
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-04-28
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482. No. 26175 of 2024
- **Bench:** Achal Sachdev
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/amar-singh-anr-v-state-of-u-p-anr-54741
- **Pages:** 6

## Text

954 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
account of violation of conditions and the concealment of fact of submission of the charge sheet
while obtaining the order dated 27.04.2023 are significant circumstances, which reflect upon the
conduct of the applicants.

17. This Court has given thoughtful consideration to the submission advanced by the
learned Senior Counsel for the opposite parties that the present case has been treated as the parent
FIR pursuant to the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is not in dispute that by
virtue of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, all the connected FIRs, arising out of
identical and similar allegations, have been directed to be clubbed with the present FIR and a
composite charge-sheet has also been submitted. Thus, the present FIR has assumed a central and
pivotal position in the entire set of proceedings. In such circumstances, any interference with the
parent FIR at this stage cannot be viewed in isolation. Quashing of the said FIR would inevitably
have a cascading and far-reaching effect on all the connected FIRs, which have been consolidated
pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The consequence of such interference
would be that the entire framework of investigation and prosecution, as structured under the
directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, may stand seriously affected. This would not only disrupt
the course of trial but may also lead to multiplicity of proceedings and legal complications in
respect of the connected matters. More importantly, the allegations in the present case pertain to
large-scale financial irregularities and cheating affecting a substantial number of investors/victims.
Therefore, any premature interference with the parent FIR would have the effect of prejudicing the
rights and interests of a large number of victims, whose grievances are sought to be addressed
through the consolidated proceedings.

18. In view of the aforesaid discussions, this Court does not find any good ground to
exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the impugned proceedings.

19. Accordingly, the present application is dismissed.

20. Application pending, if any, stands disposed of.
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 954
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ACHAL SACHDEV, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 26175 of 2024

Amar Singh & Anr. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Issue for consideration
4 All. Amar Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
955
The matter pertains to an application u/s 482 CrPC seeking the quashing of a summoning order issued in a
criminal complaint case u/s 406 IPC for the offence of criminal breach of trust.

Headnotes
A. Indian Penal Code,1860-Section 406-Criminal Procedure Code,1973-Section 482-Quashing of
proceedings-Summoning order challenged-Matrimonial discord between families leading to
financial transactions-Allegation of non-return of money advanced for purchasing a plotTransaction held to be a civil loan rather than criminal breach of trust-Summoning order
quashed for non-application of judicial mind-Application allowed. (Para 7 to 23)
Held
The court held that a financial transaction where money is voluntarily advanced to a relative for purchasing a
plot constitutes a civil loan(lending) rather than an entrustment of property under criminal law. A mere breach
of contract or failure to repay the debt cannot be criminalized u/s 406 IPC in the complete absence of a
dishonest intention or mens rea at inception. Thus, the summoning order quashed. (E-6)

Case law Cited
Anand Kumar Mohatta (S) Vs. State(Govt. of NCT of Delhi), Binod Kumar and Others Vs. State of Bihar and
Another, (2014) 10 SCC 663, Indian Oil Corporation Vs. Nepc India Ltd. And Others (2006) 6 SCC
736,Pradeep Kumar Alias Pradeep Kumar Verma Vs State of Bihar & Anr, 2007 (7) SCC 413 and Arti & 3 Ors
Vs State of U.P. & Anr, Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC: 152597. In K. Sampath Kumar Vs State , Velji
Raghavji Mehta Vs State of Maharashtra, (AIR 1965 1433),[Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd Vs State of U.P. &
Anr.,(2024) 10 SCC 690]-referred to.

List of Acts
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Criminal Procedure Code,1973.

List of Keywords
Criminal breach of trust, Entrustment , Lending, Summoning order, Civil dispute, Fiduciary relationship,
Dishonest Misappropriation, Mens Rea, Non-application of judicial mind.

Case Arising from
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION: APPLICATION U/S 482 No.- 26175 OF 2024
Amar Singh and Another Vs. State of U.P. And Another
From the judgment and order dated 28.04.2026 of the High Court of judicature at Allahabad.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for Applicant(s)
Krishna Kumar Pandey, Vikrant Neeraj
Advs. for Opposite Party(s)
 Dhruva Dixit, G.A.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Achal Sachdev, J.)

1. The case has been taken up on mention slip given by Sri Dhruva Dixit, learned counsel for
the opposite party no. 2.

2. Heard Sri Vikrant Neeraj, learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the
State.

3. However, the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 is not present at the time of
hearing.
956 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
4. The present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the applicants with a
prayer to quash the summoning order dated 10.07.2019 passed by Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Room No. 4, Aligarh in Complaint Case No. 629 of 2017 (Suresh Chandra Vs. Amar
Singh and Ors.) u/s 406 I.P.C., Police Station- Quarsi, District- Aligarh.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been wrongly roped
in, in the criminal case just to harass them. Fact of the matter is that the daughter of applicant no.1
and sister of applicant no. 2 was married to son of opposite party no. 2 on 28.11.2014. The
applicants had given gifts as per their status and daughter of applicant no. 1 went to her in-laws
house (sasural) and discharged her duties to the best of her abilities but opposite party no. 2, his son
and his wife were not satisfied with the gifts provided at the time of marriage of their son and were
making additional dowry demand from the applicants that were beyond the financial capabilities of
applicant no. 1 and on being annoyed due to non-fulfillment of additional dowry demand, they
treated the daughter of applicant no. 1 with cruelty and forced her out of her in-laws house (sasural)
and from then onwards, she is being residing with the applicant no. 1.

6. The complainant in his complaint has stated that on 30.07.2017, the father of his
daughter-in-law, Praveen, and her uncle came to the house of the complainant and told him that
they should send her daughter-in-law, Praveen along with them as her mother was running unwell.
It is also stated that they were short of Rs.1,00,000/- in buying a plot and asked for money and the
same was provided by the complainant to the opposite party no.1 (applicant no. 1 herein). At the
most, it can be said that applicant no. 1 had borrowed a sum of money from the complainant as he
was running short of finances for purpose of buying a plot and the same was provided by the
complainant to the opposite party no.1 (applicant no. 1 herein) to buy a plot.

7. The question arises whether giving of money for buying a plot to a person in relation can
be termed as entrustment of property. The court distinction between entrustment of property
and lending hinges on the transfer of ownership and the purpose of transfer and the resulting
liability. Entrustment and lending both involve one person handing property to another but
the underlying intent and legal consequences are entirely different. Entrustment occurs when a
property is handed to other person for specific purpose or service with the clear expectation that the
property or its result will be returned or handled according to instructions. Lending is a broader
category where property is delivered to another person for their own use either for a said period or
a specific cause after which it may be returned and if the person misappropriates the item that has
been entrusted to him, it may be treated as criminal breach of trust but lending is generally
governed by law of bailment and if the borrower fails to return it, it is usually a civil matter (breach
of contract) unless there is a clear evidence of theft.

8. As per Black's Law Dictionary, the definition of both the terms, being, "entrustment"
and "lending" are as under :-

 Entrustment : To give (a person) the responsibility for something, usually after
establishing a confidential relationship.
4 All. Amar Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
957
 Lending : To allow the temporary use of (something), sometimes in exchange for
compensation, on condition that the thing or its equivalent be returned.

9. In the context of Section 406 I.P.C., proceedings may be quashed if the complaint or
F.I.R., even if taken at face value, does not disclose the essential ingredients of the offence. A clear
absence of allegations regarding entrustment or dishonest misappropriation can be a ground for
quashing. The Supreme Court in Anand Kumar Mohatta (S) v. State (Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi),
emphasized the need to ascertain if the facts make out an offence under Section 406 I.P.C.

10. The punishment for an offence under Section 406 I.P.C. is imprisonment which may
extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. Consequently, as per Section 468(2)(c) of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), the period of limitation for taking cognizance of such an
offence is three years. The commencement of the limitation period can be contentious, particularly
in cases involving commercial transactions where it might be argued to commence from the date of
demand and refusal. Section 406 I.P.C. is generally not considered a continuing offence. However,
Section 473 Cr.P.C. empowers a court to take cognizance of an offence after the expiry of the
period of limitation if it is satisfied on the facts and in the circumstances of the case that the delay
has been properly explained or that it is necessary so to do in the interests of justice.

11. Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (I.P.C.) prescribes the punishment for the
offence of criminal breach of trust. This provision plays a crucial role in upholding fiduciary
relationships and ensuring accountability for the misappropriation of property entrusted to another.
Criminal breach of trust, as defined in Section 405 of the I.P.C., is a nuanced offence, requiring a
careful examination of the elements of entrustment, dishonest misappropriation, and the violation
of legal or contractual duties. Section 406 I.P.C. is intrinsically linked to Section 405 I.P.C., as the
former provides punishment for the offence defined by the latter.

12. For the sake of convenience, Section 405 I.P.C. is being reproduced hereinbelow :

 405. Criminal breach of trust - Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property,
or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that
property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law
prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or
implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or wilfully suffers any other
person so to do, commits criminal breach of trust.

 This definition is further elucidated by two explanations, which create deeming fictions in
specific employer-employee contexts.

 Explanation 1 pertains to deductions made by an employer from an employee's wages for
contribution to a Provident Fund or Family Pension Fund. If the employer defaults in remitting
such contributions, they are deemed to have been entrusted with the amount and to have
dishonestly used it.
958 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
 Similarly, Explanation 2 addresses deductions for the Employees' State Insurance Fund,
with a similar deeming provision for default in payment.

13. For a conviction under Section 406 I.P.C., the prosecution must prove the commission
of criminal breach of trust as defined in Section 405 I.P.C. In Binod Kumar and Others v. State
Of Bihar and Another, (2014) 10 SCC 663, the Supreme Court reiterated that the prosecution
must prove:

 (i) entrustment with property or dominion over it ; and

 (ii) dishonest misappropriation, conversion, use, or disposal of that property in violation
of law or legal contract.

14. The cornerstone of criminal breach of trust is 'entrustment'. The expression "entrusted" as used in
Section 405 I.P.C. is not a term of art with a narrow technical meaning. Entrustment implies that the accused
had voluntarily handed over property for a specific purpose, creating a relationship of trust and confidence.

15. At this stage, it is crucial to distinguish entrustment from other transactions. For instance, a mere
transaction of sale does not amount to entrustment. Similarly, the Supreme Court in Indian Oil Corporation
Vs. Nepc India Ltd. And Others, 2006 (6) SCC 736, held that hypothecation of goods as security for a debt
does not constitute "entrustment" as required under Section 405 I.P.C., because ownership and possession
(subject to the hypothecatee's rights) remain with the debtor. The absence of a clear allegation or proof of
entrustment is fatal to a prosecution under Section 406 I.P.C., as highlighted in cases like Pradeep Kumar
Alias Pradeep Kumar Verma Vs. State Of Bihar and Another, 2007 (7) SCC 413 and Arti And 3
Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another, Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:152597. In K. Sampath
Kumar Vs. State, where a contractor purchased cement, it was argued that there was no entrustment, leading
to an alteration of the charge from Section 406 to Section 403 I.P.C. (dishonest misappropriation of property).

16. The second critical element is the "dishonest misappropriation or conversion" of the entrusted
property. "Dishonestly" is defined in Section 24 I.P.C. as doing anything with the intention of causing
wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another. This implies a deliberate act of using the property
for a purpose other than that for which it was entrusted, or converting it to the accused's own use.

17. The Apex Court in Anand Kumar Mohatta (supra) has held that the dishonest
misappropriation or use must be "in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such
trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the
discharge of such trust."

18. This means the accused's actions must contravene either a statutory duty or a contractual term
(whether express or implied) governing how the entrusted property was to be handled. This element
underscores the fiduciary nature of the relationship and the breach of the specific terms of that trust.

19. Mens rea, specifically a "dishonest intention," is the lynchpin of the offence of criminal breach
of trust. A mere failure to return property or a simple breach of contract does not automatically translate into a
criminal breach of trust. The prosecution must establish that the accused acted with a dishonest mind. The
4 All. Smt. Ramvati Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
959
Supreme Court in Indian Oil Corporation (supra) emphasized the distinction between a civil
wrong (breach of contract) and a criminal offence, noting that criminal liability arises when elements like
fraudulent or dishonest intention are present. The lack of dishonest intention can lead to the quashing of
proceedings under Section 406 I.P.C. Dishonest intention is the sine qua non of the offence of criminal
breach of trust. Mere failure to account for money does not constitute criminal breach of trust. The
prosecution must establish that the accused dishonestly misappropriated or converted the property. A mere
civil liability to pay does not attract Section 406 I.P.C. as held by the Apex Court in Velji Raghavji Mehta
Vs. State of Maharashtra, (AIR 1965 SC 1433).

20. The Delhi Race Club case [Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and Anr., (2024)
10 SCC 690], is a recent Supreme Court precedent emphasizing that commercial disputes should not be
criminalized unless clear evidence of dishonest intention exists. It is now a strong authority for quashing
criminal complaints in business debt recovery matters.

21. In the present complaint, it appears that a sum of money had been lent by the complainant to the
opposite party no. 1 (applicant no. 1 herein) for buying a plot as he was running short of amount to enable
him to purchase the property. There were no clear instructions as to how the money has to be used for a
specific purpose. There is clear admission on the part of the complainant that the money had been provided to
the opposite party no. 1 (applicant no. 1 herein) to enable him to purchase the plot.

22. The trial court has clearly ignored this aspect of law and the summoning order dated 10.07.2019
passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Room No. 4, Aligarh in Complaint Case No. 629 of 2017
(Suresh Chandra Vs. Amar Singh and Ors.) u/s 406 I.P.C., Police Station- Quarsi, District- Aligarh, suffers
from non-application of judicial mind and is unsustainable and is hereby quashed.

23. The present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is accordingly, allowed.
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 959
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MS. NAND PRABHA SHUKLA, J.

Application U/S 528 BNSS. No. 50778 of 2025

Smt. Ramvati ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Issue for consideration
The matter arises from a double-murder trial where a material prosecution witness (the father of the
deceased victim) supported the case in his examination-in-chief but completely retracted his testimony during
cross-examination. Three years later, the victim's mother sought to recall and re-examine him u/s 311 CrPC,
claiming his retraction was forced by threats.
Headnotes