RAFIQ AHMAD vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Advocate - G.A. — C528/645/2026

Case under Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860) Section 409. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 10th April 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: UKHC010054992026

Filing Number

C528/2588/2026

Filing Date

07-Apr-2026

Registration No

C528/645/2026

Registration Date

07-Apr-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)

Decision Date

10-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Last updated 18-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860) Section 409

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.RAFIQ AHMAD

    Adv. TAPAN SINGH,PITAMBAR SINGH,PITAMBAR SINGH, ,AVNEESH KUMAR,NIKHIL KUSHWAHA,PITAMBAR SINGH

Respondent(s)

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

  2. 2.DEEPAK PANWAR

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 10-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok MahraView PDF

    The High Court of Uttarakhand dismissed the applicant's plea to quash a charge-sheet and summoning order in an embezzlement case under Section 409 IPC. The court held that at the summoning stage, only a prima facie case needs to be established, and the investigative material disclosed sufficient grounds to proceed; evidence sufficiency cannot be examined under Section 528 of BNSS at this stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 09-Apr-2026

    Fresh Cases As Defective -236

    Registrar (Judicial)

  4. 07-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. C528/645/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court of Uttarakhand dismissed the applicant's plea to quash a charge-sheet and summoning order in an embezzlement case under Section 409 IPC. The court held that at the summoning stage, only a prima facie case needs to be established, and the investigative material disclosed sufficient grounds to proceed; evidence sufficiency cannot be examined under Section 528 of BNSS at this stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case