SONI vs RAJKUMAR — 15/2022

Case under Code of Criminal Procedure Section 200. Disposed: Uncontested--DISCHARGE on 10th March 2026.

COMPLAINT

CNR: UPAU120008152022

Case disposed

Filing Number

558/2022

Filing Date

18-04-2022

Registration No

15/2022

Registration Date

18-04-2022

Court

Civil Judge Jr. Division, Bidhuna

Judge

1-Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) Outlying Court Bidhuna, Auraiya

Decision Date

10th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--DISCHARGE

Acts & Sections

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 200

Petitioner(s)

SONI

Adv. RITESH SRIWASTAV

Respondent(s)

RAJKUMAR

Hearing History

Judge: 1-Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) Outlying Court Bidhuna, Auraiya

10-03-2026

Disposed

17-02-2026

Arguments

27-01-2026

Arguments

03-12-2025

Arguments

11-11-2025

Arguments

Final Orders / Judgements

10-03-2026
Order

Summary The court discharged all four accused persons (Rajkumar, Manoj Kumar, Prakashi Devi, and Soni) under Section 245 of the CrPC in a dowry harassment case (Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act). The court found that despite multiple opportunities, the complainant failed to present any substantive evidence and repeatedly absented herself from court, thereby denying the accused a fair opportunity to challenge the allegations. Applying established legal precedent, the court held that discharge was justified as no prima facie case had been established against the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Interim Orders

10-06-2022
Order
casestatus.in Summary

Summary The court discharged all four accused persons (Rajkumar, Manoj Kumar, Prakashi Devi, and Soni) under Section 245 of the CrPC in a dowry harassment case (Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act). The court found that despite multiple opportunities, the complainant failed to present any substantive evidence and repeatedly absented herself from court, thereby denying the accused a fair opportunity to challenge the allegations. Applying established legal precedent, the court held that discharge was justified as no prima facie case had been established against the accused. 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

Civil Judge Jr. Division, Bidhuna All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case