Sanno Devi vs U.P State Government — 117/2025

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 438,440. Disposed: Contested--JUDGEMENT on 28th March 2026.

CRIMINAL APPEAL

CNR: UPAU010060052025

Case disposed

Filing Number

5841/2025

Filing Date

08-12-2025

Registration No

117/2025

Registration Date

08-12-2025

Court

District and Session Judge

Judge

4-Addl. District and Sessions Judge Court No - 2 Auraiya

Decision Date

28th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGEMENT

FIR Details

Police Station

Dibiyapur

Year

0

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 438,440

Petitioner(s)

Sanno Devi

Adv. Ram Autar singh

Respondent(s)

U.P State Government

Jitendra Singh

Beenu Singh

Pankaj Singh

Nitin Kumar

Hearing History

Judge: 4-Addl. District and Sessions Judge Court No - 2 Auraiya

28-03-2026

Disposed

23-03-2026

Judgement

10-03-2026

Judgement

21-02-2026

Hearing

13-02-2026

Hearing

Final Orders / Judgements

28-03-2026
Judgement

Summary The Additional Sessions Judge at Auraya has accepted the criminal appeal filed by Smt. Sanno Devi against the order dated 14-10-2025 of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate that had dismissed her complaint. The court found that the magistrate's order was legally flawed because it rejected the complaint solely on the basis that two sale deeds showed differences in plot boundaries, without properly examining the credible oral and documentary evidence proving that the defendants committed fraud by first selling the plot to Sanno Devi and then fraudulently reselling the same property to another person. The court directed the magistrate to reconsider the complaint in light of established law and issue a fresh reasoned order. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Additional Sessions Judge at Auraya has accepted the criminal appeal filed by Smt. Sanno Devi against the order dated 14-10-2025 of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate that had dismissed her complaint. The court found that the magistrate's order was legally flawed because it rejected the complaint solely on the basis that two sale deeds showed differences in plot boundaries, without properly examining the credible oral and documentary evidence proving that the defendants committed fraud by first selling the plot to Sanno Devi and then fraudulently reselling the same property to another person. The court directed the magistrate to reconsider the complaint in light of established law and issue a fresh reasoned order. 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 Session Judge All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case