Advocate Hariom Dubey

Questions Answered by Advocate Hariom Dubey (25+ answers)

Q: Legal Advice Required – Counter FIR / Second FIR and Police Action”

A case was registered against the opposing party on July 31, 2026, under sections 115(2), 323, 504, 76, and 109(1) of the BNS; two individuals were arrested in this matter and subsequently released on bail. That same party then filed a case under Section 56/3 in the CJM court, prompting us to file a case under Section 340 against them, regarding which the police had submitted an investigation report. However, on August 31, 2026, the opposing party registered a case against us at the police stati

Advocate Hariom Dubey answered
A counter-case on the same incident is legally permissible, since the Supreme Court held in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala (2001) and Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash (2004) that a cross-FIR or counter-complaint with a different version can be registered and investigated separately. you have to defend it on merits and show its retaliatory character. First, obtain a certified copy of the FIR and check its sections, as the sections in the query seem to mix IPC and BNS numbering and should be verified against the BNS. Second, if arrest is apprehended, move promptly for anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS (old Section 438 Cr.P.C.), citing the timing of the FIR after your Section 340 proceedings and the earlier bail orders. Third, iand the notice procedure under Section 35 BNSS for offences punishable up to seven years. Fourth, place on record the earlier FIR of July 31, 2026, the bail orders, and the Section 340 proceedings with the police report, to show the delay and the malicious motive. Fifth, if the allegations are false or an abuse of process, file a petition for quashing before the High Court, and seek a stay of coercive action. Meanwhile, cooperate with the investigation and keep evidence such as call records, CCTV, and medical papers ready.

Q: in a cc case 319 crpc detailed answer required interested only answer

Crl.M.P. of 2026 filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. remains pending for respondent-side arguments/enquiry since may 2026 , which is repeatedly adjourned at the request of the respondent side, while the main C.C. case of 2021 has itself been pending since the year 2021, whether the proceedings can be permitted to remain indefinitely pending by repeated adjournments, or filing 309 crpc in next hearing for expeditious disposal and in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C, to what will judge do, opinions

Advocate Hariom Dubey answered
Actually , proceedings cannot be allowed to remain pending indefinitely through repeated adjournments. Section 309 Cr.P.C. requires inquiries and trials to proceed as expeditiously as possible, bars adjournments merely to give a party time to argue, and allows adjournment at a party's request only where circumstances are beyond that party's control, with reasons recorded in writing. The Sc has stressed speedy trial in Hardeep Singh case Section 319 application should be decided before the trial concludes. The correct step is to file a written Section 309 applicain n at the next hearing, setting out the dates and repeated adjournments sought by the respondent side and the 2021 age of the main case, and asking the court to fix a firm date for arguments, refuse further adjournments, decide the Section 319 application proemptly, and consider costs for dilatory conduct. If court still does not act file a petition before the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. time-bound direction.

Q: DRT is giving long dates is not listening cases

DRT is giving long dates is not listening cases, i have court order from high court order that case should be expidited

Advocate Hariom Dubey answered
if you have any order from the High court for the expeditious disposal of the case you can file the order of the court and pray in entrime application for a short date. Genrally DRT HAS THE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION IN BANK CASES

Q: Recognition of Swedish mutual divorce decree under Sec 13 CPC for OCIs

Hindu marriage was solemnized in India and civilly in Sweden. Both spouses are now Swedish citizens holding OCI and domiciled in Sweden. The marriage was dissolved mutually by a Swedish District Court on a joint petition with full legal force, and property division was executed. No children. Under Section 13 CPC and Supreme Court precedents, is this foreign decree conclusive in India? Can either party maintain any fresh divorce or maintenance claim in an Indian Family Court?

Advocate Hariom Dubey answered
Yes, the foreign decree is conclusive in India.​Under Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) and Supreme Court precedent (Y. Narasimha Rao v. Y. Venkata Lakshmi), a foreign divorce decree is recognized in India if both spouses voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the foreign court and reached a mutual settlement. Since the dissolution was obtained on a joint petition, both parties are Swedish citizens domiciled in Sweden, and property division was executed, none of the exceptions under Section 13 apply. Consequently, neither party can maintain a fresh divorce or maintenance suit in an Indian Family Court.

Q: Agricultural Land size reduced due to a case in which we were not even a party

**Case background:** appellant Named Daryav Singh had a land consolidation (chakbandi) dispute over agricultural plots (gata nos. 27, 27/1, 27/2, and adjoining nos. 26, 30, 31, 32, 38) in village Jakhauda, Tehsil & District Agra. Earlier orders (1992 and 1993) reduced his land area without a proper site measurement. He appealed, and on 27-8-2008, the appellate court (Appeal No. 348/07-08) allowed his appeal, set aside the earlier orders, and sent the case back to the Consolidation Officer with directions to carry out a fresh joint measurement of the land in the presence of all parties and then pass a fresh order.As far as we know, the Consolidation Officer never passed that fresh order after 2008. A certified copy of the 2008 order was only obtained in November 2021 — about 13 years later. There are also some later measurement records and an "approved" boundary note from around 2015–2017, but it's unclear if that w

Advocate Hariom Dubey answered
The 2008 appellate order remanding the case for fresh joint measurement remains legally binding, as remand directions do not expire merely due to passage of time. To enforce it, submit a certified copy of the August 27, 2008 order (Appeal No. 348/07-08) to the Consolidation Officer (CO), Agra, along with an application requesting time-bound execution of the ordered measurement in the presence of all parties. If the CO fails to act, file a mandamus writ petition under Article 226 before the Allahabad High Court seeking directions for immediate compliance, while challenging any unverified 2015–2017 boundary notes.