Harendra kumar vs Abdul kareem — 285/2025
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 175(3). Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 04th April 2026.
Criminal Misc. Cases
CNR: UPSD010032492025
Filing Number
3024/2025
Filing Date
04-11-2025
Registration No
285/2025
Registration Date
07-11-2025
Court
District and Session Judge
Judge
3-Addl.District Judge/Special Judge(SC/ST Act)
Decision Date
04th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
FIR Details
Police Station
Mohana
Year
0
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Harendra kumar
Adv. BHUPENDRA PANDEY KUMAR
Respondent(s)
Abdul kareem
Hearing History
Judge: 3-Addl.District Judge/Special Judge(SC/ST Act)
Disposed
hearing
hearing
hearing
hearing
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 04-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 03-04-2026 | hearing |
| 26-03-2026 | hearing |
| 25-03-2026 | hearing |
| 18-03-2026 | hearing |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Decision Summary The Additional Sessions Court, Siddharthnagar, dismissed the petitioner Harendra Kumar's application under Section 173(4) BNSS seeking investigation into alleged extortion and assault. The court found the petitioner's claims lacked credible evidence—no witnesses were identified, no medical reports substantiated alleged beatings, and the petitioner failed to produce proof of the ₹1,90,000 allegedly paid or its source. Additionally, police records showed the accused constables were on duty elsewhere when the incident allegedly occurred, and no vacancy announcement for the anganwadi position cited as the complaint's origin was ever produced. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Decision Summary The Additional Sessions Court, Siddharthnagar, dismissed the petitioner Harendra Kumar's application under Section 173(4) BNSS seeking investigation into alleged extortion and assault. The court found the petitioner's claims lacked credible evidence—no witnesses were identified, no medical reports substantiated alleged beatings, and the petitioner failed to produce proof of the ₹1,90,000 allegedly paid or its source. Additionally, police records showed the accused constables were on duty elsewhere when the incident allegedly occurred, and no vacancy announcement for the anganwadi position cited as the complaint's origin was ever produced. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts