AARTIK vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Advocate - G.A. — WPCRL/121/2026
Case under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Act No. 61 of 1985) Section 8/20/29/60. Disposed: Uncontested--DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS on 15th April 2026.
CNR: UKHC010009702026
Filing Number
WPCRL/425/2026
Filing Date
13-Jan-2026
Registration No
WPCRL/121/2026
Registration Date
13-Jan-2026
Judge
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Thapliyal
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Thapliyal
Bench Type
Single Bench
Category
MISC WRIT PETITION ( 2 )
Sub-Category
FIR QUASHING ( 3 )
Judicial Branch
ALL SECTIONS (CIVIL AND CRIMINAL)
Decision Date
15-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS
Last updated 23-May-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.AARTIK
Adv. TAJHAR QAYYUM,HIMANSHU AGARWAL,HIMANSHU AGARWAL, ,GULNAZ SIDDIQUI,HIMANSHU AGARWAL
Respondent(s)
-
1.STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Advocate - G.A.
-
2.MANOJ SINGH NAYAL
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
15-Apr-2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh ThapliyalView PDF
The writ petition (WPCRL No. 121 of 2026) was dismissed as infructuous by Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. The court found that the investigation had been completed and the charge sheet had already been filed, rendering the petition's purpose moot. Both the petitioner's counsel and the State had no objection to this dismissal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
15-Apr-2026
Fresh Cases For Admission -3
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashish Naithani
-
14-Jan-2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashish NaithaniView PDF
-
14-Jan-2026
Fresh Cases For Admission -3
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashish Naithani
-
13-Jan-2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashish NaithaniView PDF
-
13-Jan-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
13-Jan-2026
Case filed
Registration No. WPCRL/121/2026
The writ petition (WPCRL No. 121 of 2026) was dismissed as infructuous by Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. The court found that the investigation had been completed and the charge sheet had already been filed, rendering the petition's purpose moot. Both the petitioner's counsel and the State had no objection to this dismissal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts