Ramdhani Pal vs State of Uttar Pradesh Advocate - Dinesh Kumar Pandey — 16/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 438. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED on 09th March 2026.
CRIMINAL REVISION
CNR: UPSN010001842026
Filing Number
163/2026
Filing Date
21-Jan-2026
Registration No
16/2026
Registration Date
21-Jan-2026
Court
District and Session Judge
Judge
1-District and Sessions Judge Bhadohi
Decision Date
09-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISPOSED
Last updated 17-Apr-2026
FIR Details
Police Station
SURIAYAWN
Year
0
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Ramdhani Pal
Adv. Dinesh Chandra Dubey
-
2.Sabhapati Pal
-
3.Rakesh Pal
-
4.Vikas Pal
-
5.Om Prakash
-
6.Rani
-
7.Sunita Devi
-
8.Shiv Devi
-
9.Jai Devi
Respondent(s)
-
1.State of Uttar Pradesh Advocate - Dinesh Kumar Pandey
-
2.Srinath
Adv. Devi Prasad Yadav
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
09-Mar-2026
PDF of OrderView PDF
Court Decision Summary The Sessions Court in Bhadohi set aside the Magistrate's order dated 05.02.2025 summoning nine accused persons under IPC Sections 352 and 427 (criminal intimidation and mischief), finding that the Magistrate failed to properly examine the contradictory statements between the complainant's narrative, witness testimonies under Sections 200-202 CrPC, and documentary evidence before issuing the summons. The court held that the lower court committed a legal error by not conducting a thorough analysis of the case materials and directed the Magistrate to rehear the matter and pass a legally sound order after proper consideration of all evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
09-Mar-2026
Disposed
District and Sessions Judge Bhadohi
-
24-Feb-2026
Judgement
District and Sessions Judge Bhadohi
-
07-Feb-2026
Arguments
District and Sessions Judge Bhadohi
-
21-Jan-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
21-Jan-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 16/2026
Court Decision Summary The Sessions Court in Bhadohi set aside the Magistrate's order dated 05.02.2025 summoning nine accused persons under IPC Sections 352 and 427 (criminal intimidation and mischief), finding that the Magistrate failed to properly examine the contradictory statements between the complainant's narrative, witness testimonies under Sections 200-202 CrPC, and documentary evidence before issuing the summons. The court held that the lower court committed a legal error by not conducting a thorough analysis of the case materials and directed the Magistrate to rehear the matter and pass a legally sound order after proper consideration of all evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts