VISHWANATH SHARMA AND ANOTHER(Not Applicable) vs STATE OF HP AND ANOTHER(Not Applicable) — CRMMO/565/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 528. Next hearing: : -.

Next hearing —

CNR: HPHC010349062026

Filing Number

CRMMO/4539/2026

Filing Date

30-May-2026

Registration No

CRMMO/565/2026

Registration Date

02-Jun-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma

Coram

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma

Bench Type

Single

Judicial Branch

Criminal Section

Last updated 05-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 528

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.VISHWANATH SHARMA AND ANOTHER(Not Applicable)

    Adv. Balwant Singh Thakur,Rinkle,Rinkle, ,Anchal Sharma,Rinkle

  2. 2.Davik(Not Applicable)

    Adv. Balwant Singh Thakur

Respondent(s)

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

    Adv. AG 1123

  2. 2.Nek Chand Sharma(Not Applicable)

Case History

  1. —

    Next hearingPending

  2. 04-Jun-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma

  3. 03-Jun-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep SharmaView PDF

    Case Summary: CRMMO/565/2026 Vishwanath Sharma and another sought quashing of FIR No.29/2025 (registered under BNS Sections 115(2) and 3(5)) based on an amicable settlement. The court adjourned the case to 04.06.2026, ordering respondent No.2 to appear in person to verify the genuineness of the compromise settlement. The Additional Advocate General was directed to verify the compromise details before the next hearing. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  4. 03-Jun-2026

    Office Objection

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma

  5. 30-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRMMO/565/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CRMMO/565/2026 Vishwanath Sharma and another sought quashing of FIR No.29/2025 (registered under BNS Sections 115(2) and 3(5)) based on an amicable settlement. The court adjourned the case to 04.06.2026, ordering respondent No.2 to appear in person to verify the genuineness of the compromise settlement. The Additional Advocate General was directed to verify the compromise details before the next hearing. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case