Kamlesh Kumar vs Mohindra Singh — 336/2025
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 438. Disposed: Contested--REJECT on 08th April 2026.
Criminal Revision
CNR: UPET010057242025
Filing Number
5319/2025
Filing Date
08-Sep-2025
Registration No
336/2025
Registration Date
09-Sep-2025
Court
District and Session Judge
Judge
9-Special Judge Schedule Caste And Schedule Tribe Act
Decision Date
08-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECT
Last updated 24-Apr-2026
FIR Details
Police Station
KOTWALI NAGAR
Year
0
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Kamlesh Kumar
Adv. Alok Kumar Tiwari
Respondent(s)
-
1.Mohindra Singh
-
2.Maya Devi
-
3.Satyam Chauhan
-
4.Mohit
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
08-Apr-2026
Copy of JudgmentView PDF
The court rejected Kamlesh Kumar's revision petition seeking a separate FIR for a land fraud case, upholding the magistrate's decision that a second FIR cannot be registered for the same conspiracy and fraudulent transaction. The court held that despite distinct financial losses and separate victims, the unified criminal conspiracy involving identical accused, modus operandi, and execution of forged deeds on the same date constitutes a single transaction, and the revisionist's interests are adequately protected through his role as prosecution witness in the existing FIR. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
08-Apr-2026
Disposed
Special Judge Schedule Caste And Schedule Tribe Act
-
07-Apr-2026
Judgement
Special Judge Schedule Caste And Schedule Tribe Act
-
10-Mar-2026
Hearing
Special Judge Schedule Caste And Schedule Tribe Act
-
13-Feb-2026
Hearing
Special Judge Schedule Caste And Schedule Tribe Act
-
04-Feb-2026
Hearing
Special Judge Schedule Caste And Schedule Tribe Act
-
20-Dec-2025
Hearing
District And Sessions Judge
-
17-Nov-2025
Hearing
District And Sessions Judge
-
16-Oct-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
08-Sep-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 336/2025
The court rejected Kamlesh Kumar's revision petition seeking a separate FIR for a land fraud case, upholding the magistrate's decision that a second FIR cannot be registered for the same conspiracy and fraudulent transaction. The court held that despite distinct financial losses and separate victims, the unified criminal conspiracy involving identical accused, modus operandi, and execution of forged deeds on the same date constitutes a single transaction, and the revisionist's interests are adequately protected through his role as prosecution witness in the existing FIR. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts