SHUBHAM SIMALTI AND ORS vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Advocate - G.A. — C528/843/2026
Case under Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860) Section 147,452,323,504,506. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED on 07th May 2026.
CNR: UKHC010068802026
Filing Number
C528/3282/2026
Filing Date
27-04-2026
Registration No
C528/843/2026
Registration Date
27-04-2026
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
07th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISPOSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
SHUBHAM SIMALTI AND ORS
Adv. YASH BISHT
Respondent(s)
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Advocate - G.A.
RAJNISH CHANDRA JUYAL
Adv. VIKAS BAHUGUNA
Hearing History
Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Mahra
FRESH CASES AS DEFECTIVE -236
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 29-04-2026 | FRESH CASES AS DEFECTIVE -236 |
Orders
Case Summary: C528/843/2026 Court Decision: The court allowed the compounding application and quashed Criminal Case No. 5460 of 2018 against Shubham Simalti and others. The FIR and chargesheet under IPC Sections 147, 452, 323, 504, and 506 were quashed after the parties reached an amicable settlement. Key Reasoning: Though the State objected that the offences were non-compoundable, the court followed Supreme Court precedent (B.S. Joshi case) permitting compounding of non-compoundable offences with court permission, and found that given the compromise, conviction was remote and continuing proceedings would cause injustice to the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: C528/843/2026 Court Decision: The court allowed the compounding application and quashed Criminal Case No. 5460 of 2018 against Shubham Simalti and others. The FIR and chargesheet under IPC Sections 147, 452, 323, 504, and 506 were quashed after the parties reached an amicable settlement. Key Reasoning: Though the State objected that the offences were non-compoundable, the court followed Supreme Court precedent (B.S. Joshi case) permitting compounding of non-compoundable offences with court permission, and found that given the compromise, conviction was remote and continuing proceedings would cause injustice to the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts