TAPAS PAL vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND Advocate - PANKAJ KUMAR, ,SAURABH NARAYAN,SHASHI KANT MISHRA,SAHIL,SACHIN MAHATO,AVILASH KUMAR — Cr.M.P./82/2023
Case under An Application U/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 406,420,504,506,IPC. Disposed: Contested--Allowed on 05th May 2026.
CNR: JHHC010007462023
Filing Number
Cr.M.P./561/2023
Filing Date
13-01-2023
Registration No
Cr.M.P./82/2023
Registration Date
17-01-2023
Judge
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Coram
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Bench Type
Single Bench
Category
Quashing Matter ( 206 )
Sub-Category
Quashing of Entire Criminal Proceedings ( 7 )
Judicial Branch
Criminal Section
Decision Date
05th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Allowed
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
TAPAS PAL
Adv. YOGESH MODI,NILESH MODI,NILESH MODI, ,NILESH MODI
Respondent(s)
THE STATE OF JHARKHAND Advocate - PANKAJ KUMAR, ,SAURABH NARAYAN,SHASHI KANT MISHRA,SAHIL,SACHIN MAHATO,AVILASH KUMAR
BRAHMADEV YADAV
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Fresh Filing (Admission)
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 14-06-2023 | Fresh Filing (Admission) |
Orders
Case Summary: Cr.M.P. No.82/2023 The High Court of Jharkhand quashed the entire criminal prosecution against Tapas Pal, holding that none of the charged offences (criminal breach of trust, cheating, intentional insult, and criminal intimidation under IPC Sections 406, 420, 504, 506) were made out. The court found that advance payment in a property sale transaction cannot constitute criminal breach of trust; cheating requires fraudulent intent from inception (not later change of mind); and allegations of mere abuse and threatening lacked the necessary legal elements for the respective offences. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: Cr.M.P. No.82/2023 The High Court of Jharkhand quashed the entire criminal prosecution against Tapas Pal, holding that none of the charged offences (criminal breach of trust, cheating, intentional insult, and criminal intimidation under IPC Sections 406, 420, 504, 506) were made out. The court found that advance payment in a property sale transaction cannot constitute criminal breach of trust; cheating requires fraudulent intent from inception (not later change of mind); and allegations of mere abuse and threatening lacked the necessary legal elements for the respective offences. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts