Nanad Lal vs Umesh Kumar — 41/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 173(4)BNSS. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 11th March 2026.
Criminal Misc. Cases
CNR: UPAN010007732026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
724/2026
Filing Date
16-02-2026
Registration No
41/2026
Registration Date
16-02-2026
Court
DIstrict and Sessions Judge
Judge
2-Special Judge (SC/ST Prev. of Atroci Act)
Decision Date
11th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Nanad Lal
Adv. Ghanshyam
Respondent(s)
Umesh Kumar
Hearing History
Judge: 2-Special Judge (SC/ST Prev. of Atroci Act)
Disposed
Hearing
Hearing
Hearing
Hearing
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 11-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 07-03-2026 | Hearing | |
| 27-02-2026 | Hearing | |
| 23-02-2026 | Hearing | |
| 16-02-2026 | Hearing |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary The Special Judge dismissed a petition filed under Section 173(4) BNSS by Nandlal against Umesh Kumar and others. The court found that the dispute arose from a civil matter involving disagreement over payment of wages (₹32,000) and division of settering (roofing) materials and work between the parties, not a cognizable criminal offense. Since the parties had conflicting accounts regarding their contractual arrangement and alleged atrocities lacked documentary evidence, the court held the petition was filed to exert unwarranted pressure rather than to address genuine criminal violations, and therefore properly rejected it. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary The Special Judge dismissed a petition filed under Section 173(4) BNSS by Nandlal against Umesh Kumar and others. The court found that the dispute arose from a civil matter involving disagreement over payment of wages (₹32,000) and division of settering (roofing) materials and work between the parties, not a cognizable criminal offense. Since the parties had conflicting accounts regarding their contractual arrangement and alleged atrocities lacked documentary evidence, the court held the petition was filed to exert unwarranted pressure rather than to address genuine criminal violations, and therefore properly rejected it. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts