DEVENDER PAL VIJ vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND Advocate - PRIYA SHRESTHA, ,GAURAV PRIYADARSHI — Cr.M.P./2740/2022
Case under An Application U/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 420,406,34,IPC. Disposed: Contested--Allowed on 08th May 2026.
CNR: JHHC010268622022
Filing Number
Cr.M.P./21340/2022
Filing Date
04-08-2022
Registration No
Cr.M.P./2740/2022
Registration Date
16-08-2022
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 Order ( 6 )
Judicial Branch
Criminal Section
Decision Date
08th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Allowed
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
DEVENDER PAL VIJ
Adv. NIPUN BAKSHI,RAJ KUMAR GUPTA,RAJ KUMAR GUPTA, ,MRINAL SINGH,RAJ KUMAR GUPTA
SONAL VIJ
Respondent(s)
THE STATE OF JHARKHAND Advocate - PRIYA SHRESTHA, ,GAURAV PRIYADARSHI
MS INDOBE VENTURES THROUGH ABHIMANUE KUMAR PANDEY
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
LAWAZIMA
Admission
Admission
Admission
Admission
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 29-08-2022 | LAWAZIMA |
| 08-05-2026 | Admission |
| 08-09-2025 | Admission |
| 15-05-2024 | Admission |
| 08-05-2024 | Admission |
Orders
The Jharkhand High Court quashed criminal proceedings against Devender Pal Vij and Sonal Vij for cheating (Section 420) and criminal breach of trust (Section 406), finding the dispute was purely civil. The court held that since the petitioners had paid substantial amounts (₹10-11 lakhs of ₹20 lakhs owed) for bus rental and there was no allegation of deception at inception, the charges were unsustainable under settled law requiring dishonest intent from the transaction's beginning. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The Jharkhand High Court quashed criminal proceedings against Devender Pal Vij and Sonal Vij for cheating (Section 420) and criminal breach of trust (Section 406), finding the dispute was purely civil. The court held that since the petitioners had paid substantial amounts (₹10-11 lakhs of ₹20 lakhs owed) for bus rental and there was no allegation of deception at inception, the charges were unsustainable under settled law requiring dishonest intent from the transaction's beginning. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts