KULDEEP NANDRAJOG vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Advocate - G.A. — C528/1118/2026

Case under Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860) Section 120B,420. Next hearing: : -.

Next hearing —

CNR: UKHC010087652026

Filing Number

C528/4186/2026

Filing Date

22-May-2026

Registration No

C528/1118/2026

Registration Date

22-May-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)

Last updated 02-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860) Section 120B,420

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.KULDEEP NANDRAJOG

    Adv. SHARANG DHULIA

  2. 2.ANJALI TYAGI

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Advocate - G.A.

  2. 2.SMT. SULOCHANA KANDARI

Case History

  1. —

    Next hearingPending

  2. 01-Jun-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok MahraView PDF

    Case Summary: C528/1118/2026 Kuldeep Nandrajog and Anjali Tyagi v. State of Uttarakhand The High Court granted a stay of criminal proceedings against the applicants in a real estate dispute involving an undelivered housing plot. The applicants challenged the Magistrate's cognizance, arguing the dispute is contractual (governed by arbitration clauses), the developer company is liquidated, and no preliminary inquiry was conducted before FIR registration as required by Supreme Court precedent. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 01-Jun-2026

    Fresh Cases For Admission -3

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashish Naithani

  4. 26-May-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashish NaithaniView PDF

  5. 26-May-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 22-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. C528/1118/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: C528/1118/2026 Kuldeep Nandrajog and Anjali Tyagi v. State of Uttarakhand The High Court granted a stay of criminal proceedings against the applicants in a real estate dispute involving an undelivered housing plot. The applicants challenged the Magistrate's cognizance, arguing the dispute is contractual (governed by arbitration clauses), the developer company is liquidated, and no preliminary inquiry was conducted before FIR registration as required by Supreme Court precedent. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case