SONU vs STATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS Advocate - G.A., RAJVEER CHAURASIYA — NA528/47094/2025
Case under Andhra State Act Section 376,43-376. Disposed: -- on 20th April 2026.
CNR: UPHC016383442025
Filing Number
NA528/
Filing Date
20-Nov-2025
Registration No
NA528/47094/2025
Registration Date
22-Nov-2025
Judge
Vivek Kumar Singh
Coram
Vivek Kumar Singh
Bench Type
Single Bench
Category
APPLICATION ( 401500 )
Sub-Category
U/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of criminal Proceedings in State case ( 36 )
Judicial Branch
Criminal Misc.
Decision Date
20-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
--
Last updated 05-Jul-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.SONU
Adv. BHASKAR BHADRA
Respondent(s)
-
1.STATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS Advocate - G.A., RAJVEER CHAURASIYA
-
2.ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT LEGAL SERVICE COMMITTEE
Adv. RAJVEER CHAURASIYA
-
3.INFORMANT
Adv. RAJVEER CHAURASIYA
-
4.CHILD WELFERE COMMITTEE
Adv. RAJVEER CHAURASIYA
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
20-Apr-2026
Vivek Kumar SinghView PDF
Case Summary: NA528/47094/2025 The Allahabad High Court quashed all criminal proceedings against Sonu under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and POCSO Act sections 3/4(2), finding that Sonu had married the victim, fathered a child with her, and the parties reached a verified compromise. Following Supreme Court precedent establishing that courts cannot ignore established family relationships, the court determined that continuing prosecution would serve no purpose and would disrupt the family unit. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
06-Apr-2026
—
Vivek Kumar Singh
-
30-Mar-2026
—
Tarun Saxena
-
20-Feb-2026
Tarun SaxenaView PDF
-
13-Feb-2026
—
Avnish Saxena
-
06-Feb-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
26-Nov-2025
Avnish SaxenaView PDF
-
20-Nov-2025
Case filed
Registration No. NA528/47094/2025
Case Summary: NA528/47094/2025 The Allahabad High Court quashed all criminal proceedings against Sonu under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and POCSO Act sections 3/4(2), finding that Sonu had married the victim, fathered a child with her, and the parties reached a verified compromise. Following Supreme Court precedent establishing that courts cannot ignore established family relationships, the court determined that continuing prosecution would serve no purpose and would disrupt the family unit. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts