ABHISHEK(Not Applicable) vs STATE OF HP(Not Applicable) — CRMMO/96/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 528. Disposed: Contested--Disposed Off on 25th March 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HPHC010524712024

Filing Number

CRMMO/11045/2024

Filing Date

18-Oct-2024

Registration No

CRMMO/96/2026

Registration Date

09-Feb-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma

Coram

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma

Bench Type

Single

Judicial Branch

Criminal Section

Decision Date

25-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Disposed Off

Last updated 14-Apr-2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 528

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.ABHISHEK(Not Applicable)

    Adv. Ishan Sharma

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF HP(Not Applicable)

    Adv. ,NEMO 1123

  2. 2.SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE(Not Applicable)

  3. 3.THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER(Not Applicable)

  4. 4.JAYA DEVI(Not Applicable)

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 25-Mar-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep SharmaView PDF

    Summary The High Court of Himachal Pradesh quashed an FIR against Abhishek for rape (Section 376 IPC) and POCSO Act violations, accepting the parties' settlement. The court reasoned that since the complainant married the accused and they have two children together, continuing the prosecution would harm her interests and serve no fruitful purpose, with conviction chances being remote given her testimony. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 23-Feb-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep SharmaView PDF

  4. 23-Feb-2026

    Notice Before Admission

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma

  5. 18-Oct-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRMMO/96/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The High Court of Himachal Pradesh quashed an FIR against Abhishek for rape (Section 376 IPC) and POCSO Act violations, accepting the parties' settlement. The court reasoned that since the complainant married the accused and they have two children together, continuing the prosecution would harm her interests and serve no fruitful purpose, with conviction chances being remote given her testimony. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case