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.
CNR: JHHC010126792026
Filing Number
Cr.M.P./8218/2026
Filing Date
16-04-2026
Registration No
Cr.M.P./1373/2026
Registration Date
05-05-2026
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)
DIVYENDU BHARDWAJ
Adv. GAUTAM KUMAR,BIRAT KUMAR,BIRAT KUMAR, ,ASHUTOSH KUMAR SINHA,ABHINAV RAJ,PUSHPANJALI KUMARI,SANJAY KUMAR,BIRAT KUMAR
KOMAL ALIAS KOMAL SHARMA
Respondent(s)
THE STATE OF JHARKHAND Advocate - SHAILESH KR SINHA
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Fresh Filing (Admission)
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 08-05-2026 | Fresh Filing (Admission) |
Orders
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.
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.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts