AMAN MANOLA vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Advocate - G.A. — C528/700/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 137(2),64. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED on 17th April 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: UKHC010059392026

Filing Number

C528/2818/2026

Filing Date

15-Apr-2026

Registration No

C528/700/2026

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 137(2),64
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (Act No. 32 of 2012) Section 3/4

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.AMAN MANOLA

    Adv. GEETANJALI DHAMI

Respondent(s)

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

  2. 2.RAGHUVAR SINGH

    Adv. TANUJA JOSHI

  3. 3.PRIYA MANOLA

    Adv. TANUJA JOSHI

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 17-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok MahraView PDF

    Case Summary: Aman Manola v. State of Uttarakhand (C528/700/2026) The High Court allowed the compounding application and quashed the entire POCSO trial proceedings after the parties reached a compromise settlement. Despite the State's opposition, the court found that with compromise between parties, conviction was remote and continuing proceedings would cause prejudice to the accused, justifying quashing the charge sheet and trial under established Supreme Court precedent. 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. C528/700/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Aman Manola v. State of Uttarakhand (C528/700/2026) The High Court allowed the compounding application and quashed the entire POCSO trial proceedings after the parties reached a compromise settlement. Despite the State's opposition, the court found that with compromise between parties, conviction was remote and continuing proceedings would cause prejudice to the accused, justifying quashing the charge sheet and trial under established Supreme Court precedent. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case