The Allahabad High Court dealt with a case challenging the initiation of criminal proceedings involving a cash transaction exceeding ₹2 lakh. The Court proceeded to adjudicate the matter in light of the restrictions imposed under Section 269ST of the IT Act, 1961.
U/s 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the petitioner Nikhil Mittal submitted an application asking to invoke the inherent authority of HC which allows it to make these orders as may be required to give effect to any order under the code, or to avert the misuse of the process of any court, or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
The applicant filed a petition seeking to quash the charge sheet dated August 4, 2025, and the cognisance order dated October 7, 2025, issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharanpur, in a criminal case registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
The petitioner claimed that the allegations of his receipt of cash surpassing Rs 2 lakh.
Section 269ST of the Income Tax Act restricts any individual from obtaining Rs 2 lakh or more in cash from a single person on the same day, in a single transaction, or for one event or occasion. This restriction applies unless the payment is made through other permissible banking channels, such as an account payee cheque or electronic modes.
Ram Adhar Yadav, appearing on behalf of the applicant, submitted that whenever a cash payment exceeding ₹2,00,000 is made in a registered deed, the Sub-Registrar is required to report the transaction to the Income Tax Department.
The counsel for the applicant relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in The Correspondent, RBANMS Educational Institution v. B. Gunashekar and Another (2025), wherein it was held that if a transaction involves a cash payment of ₹2,00,000 or more, the concerned court or authority should inform the Income Tax Department.
The applicant thereafter claimed that in the existing case, an amount surpassing Rs 2 lakh was alleged to have been paid in cash, and thus, the statutory process must have been completed by the authorities.
Justice Praveen Kumar Giri, on hearing the submissions, allowed the counsel for the State to receive the instructions from the relevant police station and asked that notice be issued to the opposite party No. 2 for filing a counter affidavit.
Read Also: List of Cash Transactions Not Eligible For I-T Exemptions
The High Court said that the case should be freshly listed for further hearing on 10 March 2026.
| Case Title | Nikhil Mittal vs. State of U.P. and Another |
| Case No | APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. – 5276 of 2026 |
| Counsel for Petitioner | Ram Adhar Yadav, Satendra Kumar |
| Counsel for Respondent | G.A. |
| Allahabad High Court | Read Order |
