AKHILESH PRASAD SRIVASTAVA ALIAS AKHIL PRASAD SRIVASTAVA vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND Advocate - BHOLA NATH OJHA — Cr.M.P./2052/2024
Case under An Application U/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 420,468,120B,IPC. Disposed: Contested--Disposed Off on 07th May 2026.
CNR: JHHC010216222024
Filing Number
Cr.M.P./15435/2024
Filing Date
28-06-2024
Registration No
Cr.M.P./2052/2024
Registration Date
28-06-2024
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
07th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Disposed Off
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
AKHILESH PRASAD SRIVASTAVA ALIAS AKHIL PRASAD SRIVASTAVA
Adv. INDRAJIT SINHA,AJAY KUMAR SAH,AJAY KUMAR SAH, ,ADITEE DONGRAWAT,AKHOURI AWINASH KUMAR,ARPAN MISHRA,ARUN KUMAR,PRERNA JHUNJHUNWALA,RISHAV KUMAR,SAGAR KUMAR,AJAY KUMAR SAH
SAVITA SRIVASTAVA ALIAS SABITA SRIVASTAVA
Respondent(s)
THE STATE OF JHARKHAND Advocate - BHOLA NATH OJHA
DR SUBODH KUMAR
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
LAWAZIMA
Admission
Admission
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 18-07-2024 | LAWAZIMA |
| 19-02-2026 | Admission |
| 12-02-2026 | Admission |
Orders
Case Summary: Cr.M.P. No. 2052/2024 The Jharkhand High Court quashed criminal proceedings against petitioners Akhilesh Prasad Srivastava and Savita Srivastava, finding that the allegations—involving a disputed 10-year lease of a building for a hospital—failed to establish essential ingredients of cheating (Section 420) or forgery (Section 468) IPC. The court held that continuing the 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. No. 2052/2024 The Jharkhand High Court quashed criminal proceedings against petitioners Akhilesh Prasad Srivastava and Savita Srivastava, finding that the allegations—involving a disputed 10-year lease of a building for a hospital—failed to establish essential ingredients of cheating (Section 420) or forgery (Section 468) IPC. The court held that continuing the 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