LAKHWINDER SINGH ALIAS LUCKY vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Advocate - G.A. — C528/664/2026
Case under Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860) Section 363,366A,376. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED on 10th April 2026.
CNR: UKHC010056492026
Filing Number
C528/2659/2026
Filing Date
08-04-2026
Registration No
C528/664/2026
Registration Date
08-04-2026
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
10th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISPOSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
LAKHWINDER SINGH ALIAS LUCKY
Adv. GEETANJALI DHAMI
Respondent(s)
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Advocate - G.A.
KANHIYA SINGH
Adv. TANUJA JOSHI
PAYAL
Adv. TANUJA JOSHI
Hearing History
Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Mahra
FRESH CASES FOR ADMISSION -3
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 10-04-2026 | FRESH CASES FOR ADMISSION -3 |
Orders
The court allowed the compounding application and quashed the entire POCSO criminal proceedings against the applicant. The court found that the parties had amicably settled their dispute, the victim (now married to the applicant since June 2024) confirmed no physical relations occurred before marriage and did not wish to pursue prosecution, and Supreme Court precedent permits compounding of non-compoundable offences when conviction likelihood is remote and continuation would cause injustice. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The court allowed the compounding application and quashed the entire POCSO criminal proceedings against the applicant. The court found that the parties had amicably settled their dispute, the victim (now married to the applicant since June 2024) confirmed no physical relations occurred before marriage and did not wish to pursue prosecution, and Supreme Court precedent permits compounding of non-compoundable offences when conviction likelihood is remote and continuation would cause injustice. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts