Orissa High Court: In a criminal revision petition challenging the order of cognizance, a Single Judge Bench of R.K. Pattanaik, J., held that simultaneous cognizance of offences relating to breach of trust and cheating cannot be sustained. The Court observed that the order dated 29-08-2025 was cryptic, lacked judicial application of mind, and failed to consider the materials-on-record. Consequently, the order was set aside and the matter remanded to the Magistrate for reconsideration with a direction to pass a reasoned order in light of settled legal principles.
The revision petition was filed assailing the order of cognizance. The F.I.R. alleged misappropriation of an amount of Rs 70 lakh. The petitioner submitted that the court below could not have taken cognizance of both offences simultaneously. In support of this contention, reliance was placed on decisions of the Supreme Court, with the submission that the order of cognizance was per se illegal. On the other hand, the State recorded submissions defending the order.
The Court emphasised that in Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. v. State of U.P., (2024) 10 SCC 690, the Supreme Court concluded that both offences cannot co-exist when one allegation is of breach of trust and the other of cheating. A similar view was expressed in Arshad Neyaz Khan v. State of Jharkhand, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2058, where it was observed that criminal breach of trust may not involve instant intention, whereas cheating requires criminal intention at the very inception with false and misleading representation.
The Court noted that on a bare reading of the impugned order, there was no such discussion by the court below. It was observed that the order dated 29-08-2025 was cryptic and that the court below had not properly considered the materials-on-record along with the chargesheet to reach a definite conclusion as to which of the two offences had been committed. The Court highlighted that there had been no judicial application of mind, and therefore the decision needed a revisit keeping in view the settled position of law and the citations referred.
Accordingly, the Court ordered that the impugned order be set aside, with a direction to the Magistrate to reconsider taking cognizance of the offence and to pass a reasoned order reflecting upon the materials on record and the settled legal position.
[Priyam Pratham Sabat v. State of Orissa, 2025 SCC OnLine Ori 4881, decided on 15-12-2025]