NUSRAT SULTANA vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND Advocate - PANKAJ KR MISHRA, ,Md Ayub Ansari — Cr.M.P./1576/2026
Case under An Application U/s 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 406,420,467,468,471,120(B),IPC. Disposed: Contested--Allowed on 10th June 2026.
CNR: JHHC010152922026
Filing Number
Cr.M.P./9832/2026
Filing Date
05-05-2026
Registration No
Cr.M.P./1576/2026
Registration Date
14-05-2026
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
F.i.r ( 2 )
Judicial Branch
Criminal Section
Decision Date
10th June 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Allowed
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
NUSRAT SULTANA
Adv. KRIPA SHANKAR NANDA,NIRANJAN KR SINHA,NIRANJAN KR SINHA, ,RASHIKA BHARDWAJ,SHREYA TIWARY,NIRANJAN KR SINHA
Respondent(s)
THE STATE OF JHARKHAND Advocate - PANKAJ KR MISHRA, ,Md Ayub Ansari
GANPATI SINGH
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Fresh Filing (Admission)
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 10-06-2026 | Fresh Filing (Admission) |
Orders
Case Summary: Cr.M.P. No. 1576/2026 The High Court of Jharkhand quashed the FIR and entire criminal proceedings against petitioner Nusrat Sultana in a case originating from Gumla P.S. Case No. 160 of 2010. The court found the offences were neither heinous nor serious, arising from a civil dispute that the parties had amicably settled outside court. Applying Supreme Court precedent, the court held that cases with predominantly civil character can be quashed upon compromise when conviction chances are remote and continuation causes hardship to the accused, provided no heinous crimes or public policy concerns are involved. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: Cr.M.P. No. 1576/2026 The High Court of Jharkhand quashed the FIR and entire criminal proceedings against petitioner Nusrat Sultana in a case originating from Gumla P.S. Case No. 160 of 2010. The court found the offences were neither heinous nor serious, arising from a civil dispute that the parties had amicably settled outside court. Applying Supreme Court precedent, the court held that cases with predominantly civil character can be quashed upon compromise when conviction chances are remote and continuation causes hardship to the accused, provided no heinous crimes or public policy concerns are involved. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts