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
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
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
Disposed
Judgement
Judgement
Hearing
Hearing
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 28-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 23-03-2026 | Judgement |
| 10-03-2026 | Judgement |
| 21-02-2026 | Hearing |
| 13-02-2026 | Hearing |
Final Orders / Judgements
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.
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
Explore other courts