SUBHAM BHARDWAJ vs STATE OF JHARKHAND Advocate - VINEET KUMAR VASHISTHA — Cr.M.P./1381/2026
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: JHHC010127072026
Filing Number
Cr.M.P./8231/2026
Filing Date
16-04-2026
Registration No
Cr.M.P./1381/2026
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)
SUBHAM BHARDWAJ
Adv. GAUTAM KUMAR,BIRAT KUMAR,BIRAT KUMAR, ,SANJAY KUMAR,ASHUTOSH KUMAR SINHA,ABHINAV RAJ,PUSHPANJALI KUMARI,BIRAT KUMAR
Respondent(s)
STATE OF JHARKHAND Advocate - VINEET KUMAR VASHISTHA
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Fresh Filing (Admission)
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 08-05-2026 | Fresh Filing (Admission) |
Orders
The High Court of Jharkhand quashed an FIR against Subham Bhardwaj for criminal breach of trust, cheating, and criminal intimidation arising from a commercial transaction dispute involving unpaid dues of ₹2,68,55,829. The court found that the case involved a contractual dispute over underpayment rather than criminal offences, holding that mere non-payment in commercial transactions does not constitute cheating or criminal breach of trust absent initial deception, and that allegations of abuse lacked sufficient specificity to constitute criminal intimidation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The High Court of Jharkhand quashed an FIR against Subham Bhardwaj for criminal breach of trust, cheating, and criminal intimidation arising from a commercial transaction dispute involving unpaid dues of ₹2,68,55,829. The court found that the case involved a contractual dispute over underpayment rather than criminal offences, holding that mere non-payment in commercial transactions does not constitute cheating or criminal breach of trust absent initial deception, and that allegations of abuse lacked sufficient specificity to constitute criminal intimidation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts