RAJEEV TYAGI vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Advocate - G.A. — C528/1044/2026

Case under Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860) Section 420. Next hearing: : -.

Next hearing —

CNR: UKHC010082962026

Filing Number

C528/3972/2026

Filing Date

15-May-2026

Registration No

C528/1044/2026

Registration Date

15-May-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Mahra

Coram

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Mahra

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

APPLICATIONS ( 5 )

Sub-Category

RELATING TO PROCEEDINGS OF POLICE CHALLANI CASES ( 3 )

Judicial Branch

ALL SECTIONS (CIVIL AND CRIMINAL)

Last updated 29-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860) Section 420

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.RAJEEV TYAGI

    Adv. RAJAT MITTAL

  2. 2.RAJEEV SHARMA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Advocate - G.A.

  2. 2.SRI PANKAJ GUPTA

  3. 3.SRI KAMAL KANT GARG

Case History

  1. —

    Next hearingPending

  2. 19-May-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok MahraView PDF

    Case Summary: C528/1044/2026 Rajeev Tyagi and Rajeev Sharma, directors of M/s Markx Infra Homes Pvt. Ltd., filed a petition to quash a chargesheet under Section 420 IPC (cheating) alleging they sold flats without executing sale deeds. They contended the dispute was purely civil—the respondents invested funds with registered agreements as security, were repaid in full, but refused to cancel agreements. The court found the applicants' submissions meritorious and stayed further criminal proceedings as an interim measure, issuing notices to respondents for their response on the next date of hearing. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 19-May-2026

    Fresh Cases For Admission -3

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Mahra

  4. 15-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. C528/1044/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: C528/1044/2026 Rajeev Tyagi and Rajeev Sharma, directors of M/s Markx Infra Homes Pvt. Ltd., filed a petition to quash a chargesheet under Section 420 IPC (cheating) alleging they sold flats without executing sale deeds. They contended the dispute was purely civil—the respondents invested funds with registered agreements as security, were repaid in full, but refused to cancel agreements. The court found the applicants' submissions meritorious and stayed further criminal proceedings as an interim measure, issuing notices to respondents for their response on the next date of hearing. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case