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

Case disposed

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

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 175(3)

Petitioner(s)

Harendra kumar

Adv. BHUPENDRA PANDEY KUMAR

Respondent(s)

Abdul kareem

Hearing History

Judge: 3-Addl.District Judge/Special Judge(SC/ST Act)

04-04-2026

Disposed

03-04-2026

hearing

26-03-2026

hearing

25-03-2026

hearing

18-03-2026

hearing

Final Orders / Judgements

04-04-2026
Copy of document.

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

District and Session Judge All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case