BASANT NARAYAN vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND Advocate - SUBODH KUMAR DUBEY, ,AISHWARYA PRAKASH — Cr.M.P./1765/2025
Case under An Application U/s 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 406,420,IPC. Disposed: Contested--Allowed on 23rd March 2026.
CNR: JHHC010177992025
Filing Number
Cr.M.P./11983/2025
Filing Date
26-05-2025
Registration No
Cr.M.P./1765/2025
Registration Date
19-07-2025
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
23rd March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Allowed
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
BASANT NARAYAN
Adv. RAHUL KUMAR,RICHA LAL,RICHA LAL, ,RICHA LAL
Respondent(s)
THE STATE OF JHARKHAND Advocate - SUBODH KUMAR DUBEY, ,AISHWARYA PRAKASH
JAINENDRA KUMAR JHA
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
LAWAZIMA
Fresh Filing (Admission)
Admission
Admission
Admission
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 02-07-2025 | LAWAZIMA |
| 29-07-2025 | Fresh Filing (Admission) |
| 23-03-2026 | Admission |
| 16-03-2026 | Admission |
| 23-02-2026 | Admission |
Orders
Summary of Cr.M.P. No. 1765/2025 The Jharkhand High Court quashed the criminal proceeding against Basant Narayan, a college principal accused of criminal breach of trust (IPC §406) and cheating (IPC §420) for non-payment of Rs. 15.90 lakhs for work rendered. The court found no prima facie case existed because: (1) cheating requires deception from transaction inception—absent here; and (2) criminal breach of trust requires proof of entrustment and dishonest misappropriation, but the complainant received advance money, not the reverse. The dispute was purely contractual, not criminal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary of Cr.M.P. No. 1765/2025 The Jharkhand High Court quashed the criminal proceeding against Basant Narayan, a college principal accused of criminal breach of trust (IPC §406) and cheating (IPC §420) for non-payment of Rs. 15.90 lakhs for work rendered. The court found no prima facie case existed because: (1) cheating requires deception from transaction inception—absent here; and (2) criminal breach of trust requires proof of entrustment and dishonest misappropriation, but the complainant received advance money, not the reverse. The dispute was purely contractual, not criminal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts