DIVYENDU BHARDWAJ vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND Advocate - SHAILESH KR SINHA — Cr.M.P./1373/2026

Case under An Application U/s 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 316(2),318(4),352,351(2),3(5),BNS. Disposed: Contested--Allowed on 08th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: JHHC010126792026

Filing Number

Cr.M.P./8218/2026

Filing Date

16-Apr-2026

Registration No

Cr.M.P./1373/2026

Registration Date

05-May-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

08-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Allowed

Last updated 04-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

An Application U/s 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 316(2),318(4),352,351(2),3(5),BNS

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.DIVYENDU BHARDWAJ

    Adv. GAUTAM KUMAR,BIRAT KUMAR,BIRAT KUMAR, ,ASHUTOSH KUMAR SINHA,ABHINAV RAJ,PUSHPANJALI KUMARI,SANJAY KUMAR,BIRAT KUMAR

  2. 2.KOMAL ALIAS KOMAL SHARMA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF JHARKHAND Advocate - SHAILESH KR SINHA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 08-May-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar ChoudharyView PDF

    Case Summary: Cr.M.P./1373/2026 Court Decision: The Jharkhand High Court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR (Case No. 14 of 2025) and all criminal proceedings against petitioners Divyendu Bhardwaj and Komal Sharma. Key Reasoning: The court found the case arose from a commercial dispute over unpaid dues (Rs. 2,68,55,829/-) and held that mere non-payment in a contractual transaction cannot constitute criminal offences under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 351(2), or 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The court determined: (1) no deception existed at inception of the transaction; (2) property sold cannot be termed "entrusted property" requiring criminal breach of trust; and (3) allegations of phone abuse were insufficient to satisfy ingredients for criminal intimidation or insult offences. The court ruled continuation of proceedings would constitute abuse of process. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 08-May-2026

    Fresh Filing (Admission)

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary

  4. 16-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. Cr.M.P./1373/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Cr.M.P./1373/2026 Court Decision: The Jharkhand High Court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR (Case No. 14 of 2025) and all criminal proceedings against petitioners Divyendu Bhardwaj and Komal Sharma. Key Reasoning: The court found the case arose from a commercial dispute over unpaid dues (Rs. 2,68,55,829/-) and held that mere non-payment in a contractual transaction cannot constitute criminal offences under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 351(2), or 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The court determined: (1) no deception existed at inception of the transaction; (2) property sold cannot be termed "entrusted property" requiring criminal breach of trust; and (3) allegations of phone abuse were insufficient to satisfy ingredients for criminal intimidation or insult offences. The court ruled continuation of proceedings would constitute abuse of process. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case