Nanad Lal vs Umesh Kumar — 41/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 173(4)BNSS. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 11th March 2026.

Case disposed

Criminal Misc. Cases

CNR: UPAN010007732026

Filing Number

724/2026

Filing Date

16-Feb-2026

Registration No

41/2026

Registration Date

16-Feb-2026

Court

DIstrict and Sessions Judge

Judge

2-Special Judge (Sc/ST Prev. of Atroci Act)

Decision Date

11-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Last updated 03-Apr-2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 173(4)BNSS

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Nanad Lal

    Adv. Ghanshyam

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Umesh Kumar

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 11-Mar-2026

    Copy of OrderView PDF

    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.

  3. 11-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Special Judge (Sc/ST Prev. of Atroci Act)

  4. 07-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    Special Judge (Sc/ST Prev. of Atroci Act)

  5. 27-Feb-2026

    Hearing

    Special Judge (Sc/ST Prev. of Atroci Act)

  6. 23-Feb-2026

    Hearing

    Special Judge (Sc/ST Prev. of Atroci Act)

  7. 16-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  8. 16-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 41/2026

casestatus.in Summary

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.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case