THE EDITOR AMAR UJALA LTD/AMARUJALA.COM vs ARJUN SINGH CHHATOLA — C528/452/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 356. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED on 10th April 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: UKHC010039662026

Filing Number

C528/1867/2026

Filing Date

16-Mar-2026

Registration No

C528/452/2026

Registration Date

16-Mar-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Mahra

Coram

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Mahra

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

APPLICATIONS ( 5 )

Sub-Category

RELATING TO PROCEEDINGS OF OTHER COMPLAINT CASE ( 4 )

Judicial Branch

ALL SECTIONS (CIVIL AND CRIMINAL)

Decision Date

10-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED

Last updated 18-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 356
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 233, 210(1)(a)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.THE EDITOR AMAR UJALA LTD/AMARUJALA.COM

    Adv. SUHAAS RATNA JOSHI,DEVESH PANDE,DEVESH PANDE, ,BHAVYA SHARMA,DEVESH PANDE

  2. 2.THE PUBLISHER AMAR UJALA LIMITED/AMARUJALA.COM

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.ARJUN SINGH CHHATOLA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 10-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok MahraView PDF

    The High Court dismissed the criminal miscellaneous application, holding that since the Magistrate had only issued a notice under Section 225 BNSS and had not yet taken cognizance, the applicants should raise their objections before the trial court at the preliminary stage rather than seek high court intervention. The court clarified that applicants remain free to challenge subsequent orders, including cognizance, if grounds arise. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 18-Mar-2026

    Fresh Cases As Defective -236

    Registrar (Judicial)

  4. 16-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. C528/452/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court dismissed the criminal miscellaneous application, holding that since the Magistrate had only issued a notice under Section 225 BNSS and had not yet taken cognizance, the applicants should raise their objections before the trial court at the preliminary stage rather than seek high court intervention. The court clarified that applicants remain free to challenge subsequent orders, including cognizance, if grounds arise. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case