Shree Ram vs Uttar Pradesh Sarkar — 3/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 438,440. Disposed: Contested--Decided on 26th March 2026.
Criminal Revision
CNR: UPSI010000762026
Filing Number
69/2026
Filing Date
03-Jan-2026
Registration No
3/2026
Registration Date
03-Jan-2026
Court
District and Session Judge
Judge
1-District Judge
Decision Date
26-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Decided
Last updated 28-May-2026
FIR Details
Police Station
KAMLAPUR
Year
0
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Shree Ram
Adv. Krishna Pal Singh
-
2.Satya Prakash
-
3.Susheel
Respondent(s)
-
1.Uttar Pradesh Sarkar
-
2.Ram Prakash
-
3.Rajkumar
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
26-Mar-2026
Copy of JudgmentView PDF
Case Summary: 3/2026 The Session Court in Sitapur dismissed the criminal revision petition filed by petitioners Shree Ram, Satya Prakash, and Susheel against a subordinate magistrate's order dated 20.12.2025. The court found that the lower court properly exercised judicial discretion in granting the respondents' petition under Section 164 BNS, recognizing them as legal heirs of the deceased landowner. The court held that since written evidence was not presented by the petitioners despite opportunity, and police/revenue reports confirmed the respondents' possession and ownership claims, the subordinate magistrate's order was legally valid and warranted no interference. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
26-Mar-2026
Disposed
District Judge
-
24-Mar-2026
Hearing Applications
District Judge
-
12-Mar-2026
Hearing Applications
District Judge
-
21-Feb-2026
Hearing Applications
District Judge
-
03-Feb-2026
Hearing Applications
District Judge
-
03-Jan-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
03-Jan-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 3/2026
Case Summary: 3/2026 The Session Court in Sitapur dismissed the criminal revision petition filed by petitioners Shree Ram, Satya Prakash, and Susheel against a subordinate magistrate's order dated 20.12.2025. The court found that the lower court properly exercised judicial discretion in granting the respondents' petition under Section 164 BNS, recognizing them as legal heirs of the deceased landowner. The court held that since written evidence was not presented by the petitioners despite opportunity, and police/revenue reports confirmed the respondents' possession and ownership claims, the subordinate magistrate's order was legally valid and warranted no interference. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts