ANKIT LOHIYA ETC vs SHO PS NARELA INDUSTRIAL AREA ETC — 8/2024
Case under --- Section 156(3). Status: Misc. cases / purpose. Next hearing: 13th August 2026.
Ct. Cases - COMPLAINT CASES
CNR: DLNT010075262024
e-Filing Number
21-05-2024
Filing Number
1594/2024
Filing Date
22-May-2024
Registration No
8/2024
Registration Date
27-May-2024
Court
District and Sessions Judge, North, RHC
Judge
431-Additional Sessions Judge
Last updated 12-Jun-2026
FIR Details
Police Station
Narela Ind. Area
Year
0
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.ANKIT LOHIYA ETC
Adv. ATUL SRIVASTAV
-
2.ASHISH KUMAR
-
3.MIRAJ JADHAV
-
4.KAMAL KISHORE
-
5.VIKASH KUMAR
-
6.BHARAT JHA
-
7.ANSH ARORA
Respondent(s)
-
1.SHO (Station House Officer) PS (Police Station) NARELA INDUSTRIAL AREA ETC
-
2.CT SUMIT
-
3.HC RAVINDRA
Case History
-
13-Aug-2026
Next hearingPending
-
05-May-2026
Copy Of OrderView PDF
Case Summary: 8/2024 Outcome: The application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for FIR registration was dismissed. However, the complainant was granted an opportunity to submit pre-summoning evidence at the next hearing (13.08.2026). Key Facts: Workers protesting at Narela Industrial Area on 03.03.2024 alleged police used excessive force (lathi charge), tortured them, kept them in illegal detention for ~10 hours, and made caste-based remarks. Medical examination reports showed nil or simple injuries; the SHO belonged to Schedule Caste category, undermining caste-slur allegations. The court found allegations vague (no specific police personnel named) and insufficient prima facie evidence of cognizable offences. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
05-May-2026
Misc. cases / purpose
Additional Sessions Judge
-
01-Apr-2026
Copy Of Judicial ProceedingsView PDF
-
01-Apr-2026
Misc. cases / purpose
Additional Sessions Judge
-
16-Mar-2026
Copy Of Judicial ProceedingsView PDF
-
16-Mar-2026
Misc. cases / purpose
Additional Sessions Judge
-
25-Feb-2026
Copy Of Judicial ProceedingsView PDF
-
25-Feb-2026
Misc. cases / purpose
Additional Sessions Judge
-
04-Feb-2026
Copy Of Judicial ProceedingsView PDF
-
04-Feb-2026
Misc. cases / purpose
Additional Sessions Judge
-
18-Dec-2025
Copy Of Judicial ProceedingsView PDF
-
18-Dec-2025
Misc. cases / purpose
Additional Sessions Judge
-
27-Nov-2025
Misc. cases / purpose
Additional Sessions Judge
-
19-Nov-2025
Copy Of Judicial ProceedingsView PDF
-
19-Nov-2025
Misc. cases / purpose
Additional Sessions Judge
-
19-Sep-2025
Copy Of Judicial ProceedingsView PDF
-
19-Sep-2025
Misc. cases / purpose
Additional Sessions Judge
-
11-Aug-2025
Copy Of Judicial ProceedingsView PDF
-
11-Aug-2025
Misc. cases / purpose
Additional Sessions Judge
-
16-Jul-2025
Copy Of Judicial ProceedingsView PDF
-
16-Jul-2025
Misc. cases / purpose
Additional Sessions Judge
-
17-May-2025
Misc. cases / purpose
Additional Sessions Judge
-
22-Mar-2025
Misc. cases / purpose
Additional Sessions Judge
-
14-Feb-2025
Misc. cases / purpose
Additional Sessions Judge
-
16-Nov-2024
Misc. cases / purpose
Additional Sessions Judge
-
21-Sep-2024
Misc. cases / purpose
Additional Sessions Judge
-
31-Jul-2024
Copy Of Judicial ProceedingsView PDF
-
31-Jul-2024
Misc. cases / purpose
Additional Sessions Judge
-
31-May-2024
Copy Of Judicial ProceedingsView PDF
-
31-May-2024
Misc. cases / purpose
Additional Sessions Judge
-
27-May-2024
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
22-May-2024
Case filed
Registration No. 8/2024
Case Summary: 8/2024 Outcome: The application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for FIR registration was dismissed. However, the complainant was granted an opportunity to submit pre-summoning evidence at the next hearing (13.08.2026). Key Facts: Workers protesting at Narela Industrial Area on 03.03.2024 alleged police used excessive force (lathi charge), tortured them, kept them in illegal detention for ~10 hours, and made caste-based remarks. Medical examination reports showed nil or simple injuries; the SHO belonged to Schedule Caste category, undermining caste-slur allegations. The court found allegations vague (no specific police personnel named) and insufficient prima facie evidence of cognizable offences. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts