ROHIT KUMAR vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Advocate - G.A. — C528/697/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 69. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED on 17th April 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: UKHC010059112026

Filing Number

C528/2806/2026

Filing Date

15-Apr-2026

Registration No

C528/697/2026

Registration Date

15-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

17-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED

Last updated 26-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 69

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.ROHIT KUMAR

    Adv. RAJ KUMAR SINGH,DEVENDRA SINGH,DEVENDRA SINGH, ,DEVENDRA SINGH

Respondent(s)

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

  2. 2.KAVITA

    Adv. RAJESH PRATAP,RADHA ARYA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 17-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok MahraView PDF

    The Uttarakhand High Court allowed Rohit Kumar's application to quash Criminal Case No. 2328 of 2026, wherein he was charged with making physical relations under false pretense of marriage. The court permitted compounding of the offence after the parties married on 15.02.2026 and reached a settlement, finding that conviction was unlikely and continuation would prejudice the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 17-Apr-2026

    Fresh Cases For Admission -3

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Mahra

  4. 15-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. C528/697/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Uttarakhand High Court allowed Rohit Kumar's application to quash Criminal Case No. 2328 of 2026, wherein he was charged with making physical relations under false pretense of marriage. The court permitted compounding of the offence after the parties married on 15.02.2026 and reached a settlement, finding that conviction was unlikely and continuation would prejudice the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case