S. 221 CrPC | No Bar To Invoke Both 'Cheating' & 'Criminal Breach Of Trust' Offences On Same Allegations: Allahabad HC

A bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal thus dismissed the bail application of a man accused of misappropriating funds collected from poor women belonging to a self-help group.

The question before the High Court was whether invoking Section 420 IPC [Section 318(4) BNS] and Section 406 [Section 316(2) BNS] simultaneously makes an FIR or the criminal proceedings erroneous.

During the hearing, the accused relied on the Supreme Court's recent judgment in Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. vs State of UP 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 603, wherein the top court had clearly defined a fine distinction between mere breach of contract and the offences of cheating and criminal breach of trust.

It was argued that invoking both offences against the accused was illegal.

The State, on the other hand, opposed this argument by referring to Section 221 CrPC (Section 244 of the BNSS), which states that if a single act or series of acts makes it doubtful which of several offences the facts will constitute, the accused may be charged with having committed all or any of such offences at once.

The state counsel specifically relied on illustration (a) of S. 244 BNSS, which states that if a person is accused of an act which may amount to theft, receiving stolen property, criminal breach of trust, or cheating, he may be charged with all of them simultaneously.

Thus, it was suggested that the Delhi Race Club judgment of the Supreme Court was contrary to this provision.

Against the backdrop of these submissions, the bench perused the top court judgment in the Delhi Race Club case and the provisions of Section 221 CrPC/Section 244 BNSS, noting that the judgment had not been placed before the Supreme Court.

Justice Deshwal, however, also noted that the Top Court had observed that both the offences cannot coexist simultaneously in the same set of facts, but it wasn't held that even if both the offences have been invoked, then proceeding would be erroneous.

Consequently, the bench held so:

"From perusal of Section 221 CrPC (244 BNSS) and its illustration (a), it is clear, if single act or series of acts of such nature that it is doubtful which of several offences the facts may attract, then the accused may be charged having committed of all or any of such offences including Sections 420 IPC (318(4) BNS) and 406 IPC (316(2) BNS). Therefore, there is no bar for charging an accused under Section 420 IPC (318(4) BNS) and 406 IPC (316(2) BNS) where the fact creates doubt which offence is actually committed".

Therefore, the court found the submission of the accused that the proceeding is erroneous to be absolutely misconceived.

Turning to the facts of the case, the court noted that the applicant had collected Rs. 2,11,353 from 33 women on behalf of the first informant's company but failed to deposit the money.

Despite initially giving an undertaking on January 28, 2026, to deposit the collected amount, the applicant later refused to comply.

Furthermore, the bench noted that multiple victim girls had recorded specific statements stating that the applicant personally collected the money from them.

In view of this, the bail application was rejected.