Sushila vs Rakesh Tripathi — 6/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 173(4). Disposed: Contested--REJECT on 17th March 2026.
Criminal Misc. Cases
CNR: UPSD010000692026
Filing Number
62/2026
Filing Date
07-Jan-2026
Registration No
6/2026
Registration Date
07-Jan-2026
Court
District and Session Judge
Judge
3-Addl.District Judge/Special Judge(SC/ST Act)
Decision Date
17-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECT
Last updated 07-May-2026
FIR Details
Police Station
Trilokpur
Year
0
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Sushila
Adv. D K SRIVASTAVA
Respondent(s)
-
1.Rakesh Tripathi
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
17-Mar-2026
Copy of document.View PDF
Case Summary The Additional Sessions Court (SC/ST PoA Act), Siddharthnagar, dismissed the petitioner's application under Section 173(4) BNSS filed by Sushila Devi (an SC community sanitation worker) against police officer Rakesh Tripathi. The court found the petitioner's allegations of attempted rape and intimidation to be unsubstantiated and contradictory, noting: a 1.5-year delay in filing the complaint, inconsistencies regarding the incident's timing and location, the petitioner's own involvement as an accused in FIR 93/2024, corroborating police investigation reports, and lack of medical or contemporaneous evidence supporting the claims. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
17-Mar-2026
Disposed
Addl.District Judge/Special Judge(SC/ST Act)
-
10-Mar-2026
Disposal
Addl.District Judge/Special Judge(SC/ST Act)
-
26-Feb-2026
Disposal
Addl.District Judge/Special Judge(SC/ST Act)
-
29-Jan-2026
Disposal
Addl.District Judge/Special Judge(SC/ST Act)
-
20-Jan-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
07-Jan-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 6/2026
Case Summary The Additional Sessions Court (SC/ST PoA Act), Siddharthnagar, dismissed the petitioner's application under Section 173(4) BNSS filed by Sushila Devi (an SC community sanitation worker) against police officer Rakesh Tripathi. The court found the petitioner's allegations of attempted rape and intimidation to be unsubstantiated and contradictory, noting: a 1.5-year delay in filing the complaint, inconsistencies regarding the incident's timing and location, the petitioner's own involvement as an accused in FIR 93/2024, corroborating police investigation reports, and lack of medical or contemporaneous evidence supporting the claims. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts