Vinesh Kumar Rep.By Rajpal Singh Verma Advocate vs Madhuri — 341/2025
Case under Code of Criminal Procedure Section 498A. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 13th March 2026.
Criminal Revision
CNR: UPET010059562025
Filing Number
5545/2025
Filing Date
11-Sep-2025
Registration No
341/2025
Registration Date
12-Sep-2025
Court
District and Session Judge
Judge
9-Special Judge Schedule Caste And Schedule Tribe Act
Decision Date
13-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Last updated 24-Apr-2026
FIR Details
Police Station
MIRHACHI
Year
0
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Vinesh Kumar Rep.By Rajpal Singh Verma Advocate
Respondent(s)
-
1.Madhuri
-
2.State
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
13-Mar-2026
Copy of JudgmentView PDF
Court Decision Summary The Additional District and Sessions Judge dismissed Veenesh Kumar's revision petition and upheld the trial court's summoning order under Section 498A IPC (dowry cruelty). The court held that the complainant's evidence—her sworn statement and corroborating witness testimonies—established sufficient grounds to proceed against the husband alone, and the revisionist's alternative version of events and alleged prior litigation constitutes impermissible "possible defenses" that cannot be examined at the summoning stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
13-Mar-2026
Disposed
Special Judge Schedule Caste And Schedule Tribe Act
-
10-Mar-2026
Judgement
Special Judge Schedule Caste And Schedule Tribe Act
-
13-Feb-2026
Hearing
Special Judge Schedule Caste And Schedule Tribe Act
-
20-Jan-2026
Hearing
Special Judge Schedule Caste And Schedule Tribe Act
-
15-Dec-2025
Hearing
District And Sessions Judge
-
21-Nov-2025
Hearing
District And Sessions Judge
-
17-Oct-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
11-Sep-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 341/2025
Court Decision Summary The Additional District and Sessions Judge dismissed Veenesh Kumar's revision petition and upheld the trial court's summoning order under Section 498A IPC (dowry cruelty). The court held that the complainant's evidence—her sworn statement and corroborating witness testimonies—established sufficient grounds to proceed against the husband alone, and the revisionist's alternative version of events and alleged prior litigation constitutes impermissible "possible defenses" that cannot be examined at the summoning stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts