KULDEEP NANDRAJOG vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Advocate - G.A. — C528/1119/2026
Case under Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860) Section 420. Next hearing: : -.
CNR: UKHC010087642026
Next Hearing
: -
Filing Number
C528/4185/2026
Filing Date
22-05-2026
Registration No
C528/1119/2026
Registration Date
22-05-2026
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 POLICE CHALLANI CASES ( 3 )
Judicial Branch
ALL SECTIONS (CIVIL AND CRIMINAL)
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
KULDEEP NANDRAJOG
Adv. SHARANG DHULIA
ANJALI TYAGI
Respondent(s)
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Advocate - G.A.
SMT. RAMA SHARMA
Hearing History
Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Mahra
FRESH CASES FOR ADMISSION -3
FRESH CASES FOR ADMISSION -3
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 26-05-2026 | FRESH CASES FOR ADMISSION -3 |
| 01-06-2026 | FRESH CASES FOR ADMISSION -3 |
Orders
Case Summary: C528/1119/2026 The High Court stayed criminal proceedings against Kuldeep Nandrajog and Anjali Tyagi arising from an FIR lodged by Rama Sharma regarding a property dispute over a plot in Octagon Builders' housing scheme in Haridwar. The court found the dispute to be contractual in nature governed by an arbitration clause, noted the company had been liquidated since 2018 leaving applicants without independent control, and held that no preliminary inquiry was conducted before FIR registration as mandated by Supreme Court precedent. The court issued notice to the complainant, stayed further proceedings in the trial court pending next hearing, and directed listing after service reports received. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: C528/1119/2026 The High Court stayed criminal proceedings against Kuldeep Nandrajog and Anjali Tyagi arising from an FIR lodged by Rama Sharma regarding a property dispute over a plot in Octagon Builders' housing scheme in Haridwar. The court found the dispute to be contractual in nature governed by an arbitration clause, noted the company had been liquidated since 2018 leaving applicants without independent control, and held that no preliminary inquiry was conducted before FIR registration as mandated by Supreme Court precedent. The court issued notice to the complainant, stayed further proceedings in the trial court pending next hearing, and directed listing after service reports received. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts