Dinesh Swaroop Saxena vs Ved Prakash — 315/2025
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 438,440. Disposed: Contested--REJECT on 17th March 2026.
Criminal Revision
CNR: UPET010054422025
Filing Number
5065/2025
Filing Date
22-Aug-2025
Registration No
315/2025
Registration Date
22-Aug-2025
Court
District and Session Judge
Judge
9-Special Judge Schedule Caste And Schedule Tribe Act
Decision Date
17-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECT
Last updated 16-May-2026
FIR Details
Police Station
ALIGANJ
Year
0
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Dinesh Swaroop Saxena
Adv. Ram Khilali Yadav
Respondent(s)
-
1.Ved Prakash
-
2.Sandeep
-
3.Sudesh Alias Pappu
-
4.Arvind
-
5.Rakesh Singh Alias Akhilesh Chandra
-
6.Gyanesh
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
17-Mar-2026
Copy of JudgmentView PDF
Summary The Special Judge affirmed the trial court's discharge of six accused persons under Section 245 CrPC, rejecting the complainant's revision petition. The court held that since the complainant failed to produce any witnesses despite multiple opportunities over 12 years, the trial court correctly discharged the accused due to lack of evidence, emphasizing speedy trial principles and prevention of harassment through indefinite litigation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
17-Mar-2026
Disposed
Special Judge Schedule Caste And Schedule Tribe Act
-
11-Mar-2026
Disposal 46c
Special Judge Schedule Caste And Schedule Tribe Act
-
19-Feb-2026
Arguments
Special Judge Schedule Caste And Schedule Tribe Act
-
05-Feb-2026
Arguments
Special Judge Schedule Caste And Schedule Tribe Act
-
17-Jan-2026
Arguments
Special Judge Schedule Caste And Schedule Tribe Act
-
23-Dec-2025
Arguments
District And Sessions Judge
-
26-Nov-2025
Arguments
District And Sessions Judge
-
30-Oct-2025
Arguments
District And Sessions Judge
-
29-Sep-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
22-Aug-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 315/2025
Summary The Special Judge affirmed the trial court's discharge of six accused persons under Section 245 CrPC, rejecting the complainant's revision petition. The court held that since the complainant failed to produce any witnesses despite multiple opportunities over 12 years, the trial court correctly discharged the accused due to lack of evidence, emphasizing speedy trial principles and prevention of harassment through indefinite litigation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts