SURAJ KUMAR DAS vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND Advocate - SHAILENDRA KUMAR TIWARI Spl.P.P., ,DEVESH AJMANI — Cr.M.P./1098/2026
Case under An Application U/s 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 318(4),336(3),351(2),352,BNS,66(C),66(D),IT,ACT. Disposed: Contested--Allowed on 08th May 2026.
CNR: JHHC010098512026
Filing Number
Cr.M.P./6385/2026
Filing Date
23-03-2026
Registration No
Cr.M.P./1098/2026
Registration Date
18-04-2026
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
08th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Allowed
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
SURAJ KUMAR DAS
Adv. ANKIT KUMAR
Respondent(s)
THE STATE OF JHARKHAND Advocate - SHAILENDRA KUMAR TIWARI Spl.P.P., ,DEVESH AJMANI
SHAILENDRA KUMAR
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
LAWAZIMA
Fresh Filing (Admission)
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 13-04-2026 | LAWAZIMA |
| 08-05-2026 | Fresh Filing (Admission) |
Orders
Case Summary: Cr.M.P. No. 1098/2026 The Jharkhand High Court allowed petitioner Suraj Kumar Das's petition to quash criminal proceedings in Ranchi Cyber P.S. Case No. 242 of 2024, involving offences under BNS Sections 318(4), 336(3), 351(2), 352 and IT Act Sections 66(C), 66(D). The court found the dispute was private in nature with complete settlement between the parties, the victim had received compensation, conviction was remote, and continuing prosecution would cause extreme injustice; accordingly, the FIR and entire criminal proceeding were quashed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: Cr.M.P. No. 1098/2026 The Jharkhand High Court allowed petitioner Suraj Kumar Das's petition to quash criminal proceedings in Ranchi Cyber P.S. Case No. 242 of 2024, involving offences under BNS Sections 318(4), 336(3), 351(2), 352 and IT Act Sections 66(C), 66(D). The court found the dispute was private in nature with complete settlement between the parties, the victim had received compensation, conviction was remote, and continuing prosecution would cause extreme injustice; accordingly, the FIR and entire criminal proceeding were quashed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts