ANITA DEVI(Not Applicable) vs STATE OF HP AND OTHERS(Not Applicable) — CRMMO/127/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 528. Disposed: Contested--Disposed Off on 23rd March 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HPHC010070842026

Filing Number

CRMMO/1154/2026

Filing Date

24-Feb-2026

Registration No

CRMMO/127/2026

Registration Date

03-Mar-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kainthla

Coram

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kainthla

Bench Type

Single

Judicial Branch

Criminal Section

Decision Date

23-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Disposed Off

Last updated 26-Mar-2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 528

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.ANITA DEVI(Not Applicable)

    Adv. Rajesh Kumar Parmar

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF HP AND OTHERS(Not Applicable)

    Adv. AG 1123

  2. 2.Maya Devi(Not Applicable)

  3. 3.Anju Devi(Not Applicable)

  4. 4.Veena Devi(Not Applicable)

  5. 5.Sulochana Devi(Not Applicable)

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 23-Mar-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh KainthlaView PDF

    CRMMO/127/2026 Summary The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed Anita Devi's petition challenging the trial court's order refusing to send a DVD for forensic examination. The court upheld the trial judge's reasoning that forensic examination was premature since witnesses remain to be examined and authenticity can be determined through witness testimony or the video recorder's examination. The court held that inherent jurisdiction should be exercised sparingly and no grounds justified intervention at this stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 05-Mar-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh KainthlaView PDF

  4. 05-Mar-2026

    Office Objection

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kainthla

  5. 24-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRMMO/127/2026

casestatus.in Summary

CRMMO/127/2026 Summary The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed Anita Devi's petition challenging the trial court's order refusing to send a DVD for forensic examination. The court upheld the trial judge's reasoning that forensic examination was premature since witnesses remain to be examined and authenticity can be determined through witness testimony or the video recorder's examination. The court held that inherent jurisdiction should be exercised sparingly and no grounds justified intervention at this stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case