KUMUD KUMAR JHA vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND Advocate - PRIYA SHRESTHA, ,ANIL KUMAR SINHA — Cr.M.P./4564/2022
Case under An Application U/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 417,IPC. Disposed: Contested--Allowed on 05th May 2026.
CNR: JHHC010433612022
Filing Number
Cr.M.P./33722/2022
Filing Date
13-12-2022
Registration No
Cr.M.P./4564/2022
Registration Date
17-12-2022
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 Entire Criminal Proceedings ( 7 )
Judicial Branch
Criminal Section
Decision Date
05th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Allowed
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
KUMUD KUMAR JHA
Adv. ASHIM KR SAHANI,VIKESH KUMAR,VIKESH KUMAR, ,VIKESH KUMAR
Respondent(s)
THE STATE OF JHARKHAND Advocate - PRIYA SHRESTHA, ,ANIL KUMAR SINHA
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
LAWAZIMA
Admission
Admission
Admission
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 20-01-2023 | LAWAZIMA |
| 15-10-2025 | Admission |
| 08-10-2025 | Admission |
| 24-09-2025 | Admission |
Orders
Case Summary: Cr.M.P. No. 4564/2022 The Jharkhand High Court allowed the petition of Kumud Kumar Jha and quashed the entire criminal proceeding, including the 2007 cognizance order under Section 417 IPC (cheating). The court found that while allegations of confinement, abuse, and coercion existed, the essential ingredients of cheating—deception and fraudulent/dishonest inducement to deliver property—were absent from the complaint, making the offense legally unmade out despite accepting facts as true. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: Cr.M.P. No. 4564/2022 The Jharkhand High Court allowed the petition of Kumud Kumar Jha and quashed the entire criminal proceeding, including the 2007 cognizance order under Section 417 IPC (cheating). The court found that while allegations of confinement, abuse, and coercion existed, the essential ingredients of cheating—deception and fraudulent/dishonest inducement to deliver property—were absent from the complaint, making the offense legally unmade out despite accepting facts as true. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts