PARDEEP KUMAR vs STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS — CRWP/4124/2026

Disposed: --DISPOSED OF on 11th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: PHHC010598662026

Filing Number

CRWP/26874/2026

Filing Date

08-Apr-2026

Registration No

CRWP/4124/2026

Registration Date

09-Apr-2026

Judge

Mr. Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj

Coram

Mr. Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj

Bench Type

Single

Category

99 ( 945 )

Sub-Category

47.5 - PROTECTION ( 195 )

Judicial Branch

CRIMINAL BRANCH

Decision Date

11-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISPOSED OF

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.PARDEEP KUMAR

    Adv. SHOKEEN SINGH VERMA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 11-May-2026

    Mr. Justice Vinod S. BhardwajView PDF

    Case Summary: CRWP/4124/2026 Petitioner Pradeep Kumar sought protection from alleged harassment by police officials and his wife (respondent No.5). The court found that Kumar concealed material facts, including a prior petition (CRWP-3715/2026) and an FIR filed by his wife under IPC sections 323/452/376(b)/506, which was recommended for cancellation after investigation. The respondent police officer's alleged involvement was limited to court-ordered counseling that led to reconciliation. Since Kumar, a practicing advocate, failed to make complete disclosure and his counsel did not dispute the concealment, the petition was allowed to be withdrawn with a cost of Rs. 10,000 imposed on the petitioner. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 08-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRWP/4124/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CRWP/4124/2026 Petitioner Pradeep Kumar sought protection from alleged harassment by police officials and his wife (respondent No.5). The court found that Kumar concealed material facts, including a prior petition (CRWP-3715/2026) and an FIR filed by his wife under IPC sections 323/452/376(b)/506, which was recommended for cancellation after investigation. The respondent police officer's alleged involvement was limited to court-ordered counseling that led to reconciliation. Since Kumar, a practicing advocate, failed to make complete disclosure and his counsel did not dispute the concealment, the petition was allowed to be withdrawn with a cost of Rs. 10,000 imposed on the petitioner. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case