GURUKRIPA SINGH CHAUHAN vs BAFFEL ACADEMY PVT LTD — 473/2025
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 438. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 11th April 2026.
CR CRIMINAL REVISION - CRIMINAL REVISION
CNR: DLSW010081582025
e-Filing Number
28-08-2025
Filing Number
4354/2025
Filing Date
29-08-2025
Registration No
473/2025
Registration Date
30-08-2025
Court
District and Session Judge, South-West DWK
Judge
435-Additional Sessions Judge
Decision Date
11th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
GURUKRIPA SINGH CHAUHAN
Adv. Tejasv Anand
Respondent(s)
BAFFEL ACADEMY PVT LTD
Hearing History
Judge: 435-Additional Sessions Judge
Disposed
Order
Order
Order
Order
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 11-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 04-04-2026 | Order |
| 13-03-2026 | Order |
| 09-03-2026 | Order |
| 25-02-2026 | Order |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case 473/2025 Summary Gurukripa Singh Chauhan v. Baffel Academy Pvt Ltd The court dismissed the revision petition challenging a summoning order dated 08.08.2024 for defamation charges (IPC §500/34). Petitioner Chauhan argued he was denied a hearing as required by the new Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita (BNSS), which came into force on 01.07.2024. The court held that since the complaint and evidence examination occurred under the old Code of Criminal Procedure (1973) before BNSS's commencement, the proceedings remained governed by CrPC's savings clause; the accused would have hearing rights at trial stages. The summons order was legal and valid. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case 473/2025 Summary Gurukripa Singh Chauhan v. Baffel Academy Pvt Ltd The court dismissed the revision petition challenging a summoning order dated 08.08.2024 for defamation charges (IPC §500/34). Petitioner Chauhan argued he was denied a hearing as required by the new Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita (BNSS), which came into force on 01.07.2024. The court held that since the complaint and evidence examination occurred under the old Code of Criminal Procedure (1973) before BNSS's commencement, the proceedings remained governed by CrPC's savings clause; the accused would have hearing rights at trial stages. The summons order was legal and valid. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts