KULDEEP NANDRAJOG vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Advocate - G.A. — C528/1178/2026

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

CNR: UKHC010092622026

Next Hearing

: -

Filing Number

C528/4439/2026

Filing Date

29-05-2026

Registration No

C528/1178/2026

Registration Date

29-05-2026

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

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

Petitioner(s)

KULDEEP NANDRAJOG

Adv. SHARANG DHULIA

ANJALI TYAGI

Respondent(s)

STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Advocate - G.A.

MR. DHARMESH KUMAR BAJAJ

Hearing History

Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Mahra

01-06-2026

FRESH CASES FOR ADMISSION -3

Orders

01-06-2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Mahra

Summary: C528/1178/2026 The court issued notice to the respondent and stayed further proceedings in the underlying criminal case (Criminal Case No. 647 of 2025) pending before the Haridwar Magistrate. The applicants challenged cognizance taken in a real estate dispute involving a housing scheme, arguing the matter is contractual (governed by an arbitration clause and contractual remedies) rather than criminal, and that no preliminary inquiry was conducted before FIR registration as required by law. The case is listed for next hearing after service report is received. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: C528/1178/2026 The court issued notice to the respondent and stayed further proceedings in the underlying criminal case (Criminal Case No. 647 of 2025) pending before the Haridwar Magistrate. The applicants challenged cognizance taken in a real estate dispute involving a housing scheme, arguing the matter is contractual (governed by an arbitration clause and contractual remedies) rather than criminal, and that no preliminary inquiry was conducted before FIR registration as required by law. The case is listed for next hearing after service report is received. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Explore other courts

Search Another Case