MD MOKARRAM ALIAS MD MOKARRAM KHAN @ MD MUKARRAM KHAN vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND Advocate - VINEET KUMAR VASHISTHA, ,RAMESH KUMAR — Cr.M.P./1370/2026
Case under An Application U/s 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 420,406,120B,34,IPC,3,4,6,CMCSB,ACT. Disposed: Contested--Disposed Off on 07th May 2026.
CNR: JHHC010057132026
Filing Number
Cr.M.P./3809/2026
Filing Date
13-02-2026
Registration No
Cr.M.P./1370/2026
Registration Date
04-05-2026
Judge
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Coram
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Bench Type
Single Bench
Category
LOTTERY ( 148 )
Sub-Category
Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act. ( 4 )
Judicial Branch
Criminal Section
Decision Date
07th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Disposed Off
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
MD MOKARRAM ALIAS MD MOKARRAM KHAN @ MD MUKARRAM KHAN
Adv. RAJESH KUMAR
Respondent(s)
THE STATE OF JHARKHAND Advocate - VINEET KUMAR VASHISTHA, ,RAMESH KUMAR
ASHOK KUMAR SAH
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
LAWAZIMA
Fresh Filing (Admission)
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 12-03-2026 | LAWAZIMA |
| 07-05-2026 | Fresh Filing (Admission) |
Orders
Summary The Jharkhand High Court quashed all criminal proceedings against MD Mokarram Khan in a case involving charges under IPC Sections 420, 406, 120B, 34 and the Cheats and Money Circulation Scheme Banning Act, after both the petitioner and complainant reached a complete settlement. The court held that since the dispute was private in nature (not involving heinous crimes), conviction prospects were remote due to full compromise, and continuation would constitute abuse of process, quashing was warranted to secure justice. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The Jharkhand High Court quashed all criminal proceedings against MD Mokarram Khan in a case involving charges under IPC Sections 420, 406, 120B, 34 and the Cheats and Money Circulation Scheme Banning Act, after both the petitioner and complainant reached a complete settlement. The court held that since the dispute was private in nature (not involving heinous crimes), conviction prospects were remote due to full compromise, and continuation would constitute abuse of process, quashing was warranted to secure justice. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts