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

Case disposed

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

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 173(4)BNSS

Petitioner(s)

Nanad Lal

Adv. Ghanshyam

Respondent(s)

Umesh Kumar

Hearing History

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

11-03-2026

Disposed

07-03-2026

Hearing

27-02-2026

Hearing

23-02-2026

Hearing

16-02-2026

Hearing

Final Orders / Judgements

11-03-2026
Copy of Order

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.

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.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

DIstrict and Sessions Judge All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case