NISHANT MITTAL SOHINI ADHIKARI vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR — CRR/4027/2025
Case under Code of Criminal Procedure Section 482. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 23rd March 2026.
CNR: WBCHCA0429162025
Filing Number
CRR/4005/2025
Filing Date
04-Sep-2025
Registration No
CRR/4027/2025
Registration Date
04-Sep-2025
Judge
Hon'ble Dr. Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee
Coram
Hon'ble Dr. Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee
Bench Type
Single Bench
Category
GROUP C (CRIMINAL MATTERS) ( 3 )
Sub-Category
Quashing of Proceedings ( 75 )
Judicial Branch
CRIMINAL SECTION
Decision Date
23-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ALLOWED
Last updated 27-Mar-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.NISHANT MITTAL SOHINI ADHIKARI
Respondent(s)
-
1.STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR
-
2.MANAJIT PAL
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
23-Mar-2026
Hon'ble Dr. Justice Ajoy Kumar MukherjeeView PDF
-
23-Mar-2026
Hon'ble Dr. Justice Ajoy Kumar MukherjeeView PDF
The court quashed criminal proceedings (G.R. Case No. 6366 of 2022) against petitioner Nishant Mittal, a director of PCM Steel Pvt. Ltd., after the parties amicably settled their commercial dispute over delayed payment. The court found that since the complainant received full payment of Rs. 3,05,620 and declined to proceed further, continuing the criminal case would constitute abuse of process with no realistic prospect of conviction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
16-Mar-2026
To Be Mentioned
Hon'ble Dr. Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee
-
09-Mar-2026
Hon'ble Dr. Justice Ajoy Kumar MukherjeeView PDF
-
15-Sep-2025
Motion 1
Hon'ble Justice Jay Sengupta
-
12-Sep-2025
Motion
Hon'ble Justice Jay Sengupta
-
11-Sep-2025
Motion
Hon'ble Justice Jay Sengupta
-
10-Sep-2025
Motion
Hon'ble Justice Jay Sengupta
-
09-Sep-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
04-Sep-2025
Case filed
Registration No. CRR/4027/2025
The court quashed criminal proceedings (G.R. Case No. 6366 of 2022) against petitioner Nishant Mittal, a director of PCM Steel Pvt. Ltd., after the parties amicably settled their commercial dispute over delayed payment. The court found that since the complainant received full payment of Rs. 3,05,620 and declined to proceed further, continuing the criminal case would constitute abuse of process with no realistic prospect of conviction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts