KAMINI CHOPRA vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Advocate - G.A. — C528/1222/2026

Case under Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860) Section 120B,406,420. Next hearing: : -.

Next hearing —

CNR: UKHC010094952026

Filing Number

C528/4548/2026

Filing Date

01-Jun-2026

Registration No

C528/1222/2026

Registration Date

01-Jun-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 04-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860) Section 120B,406,420

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.KAMINI CHOPRA

    Adv. PIYUSH GARG

  2. 2.SRI CHAHAT CHOPRA

Respondent(s)

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

  2. 2.STATION HOUSE OFFICER

    Adv. G.A.

  3. 3.SRI BALVEER SINGH NEGI

Case History

  1. —

    Next hearingPending

  2. 03-Jun-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok MahraView PDF

    Case Summary: C528/1222/2026 Kamini Chopra and Sri Chahat Chopra filed a petition challenging an FIR lodged by Balveer Singh Negi alleging cheating over a failed property sale agreement for ₹2,13,50,000 at Rishikesh. The applicants argued the dispute is purely contractual and not criminal in nature. The court issued notice to respondent no.3, stayed further criminal proceedings (Criminal Case No.297 of 2025) pending before the lower court, and adjourned the matter for next listing after service report receipt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 03-Jun-2026

    Fresh Cases For Admission -3

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Mahra

  4. 01-Jun-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. C528/1222/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: C528/1222/2026 Kamini Chopra and Sri Chahat Chopra filed a petition challenging an FIR lodged by Balveer Singh Negi alleging cheating over a failed property sale agreement for ₹2,13,50,000 at Rishikesh. The applicants argued the dispute is purely contractual and not criminal in nature. The court issued notice to respondent no.3, stayed further criminal proceedings (Criminal Case No.297 of 2025) pending before the lower court, and adjourned the matter for next listing after service report receipt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case