BABLU ALIAS ISRAR vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Advocate - G.A. — WPCRL/801/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 123,64(1). Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 05th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: UKHC010072482026

Filing Number

WPCRL/3451/2026

Filing Date

02-May-2026

Registration No

WPCRL/801/2026

Registration Date

02-May-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Thapliyal

Coram

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Thapliyal

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

MISC WRIT PETITION ( 2 )

Sub-Category

FIR QUASHING ( 3 )

Judicial Branch

ALL SECTIONS (CIVIL AND CRIMINAL)

Decision Date

05-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Last updated 06-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 123,64(1)
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (Act No. 32 of 2012) Section 3(a),41,5n,6

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.BABLU ALIAS ISRAR

    Adv. BILAL AHMED

Respondent(s)

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

  2. 2.STATION HOUSE OFFICER PS (Police Station) KOTWALI MANGLAUR

    Adv. G.A.

  3. 3.WARIS ALI

    Adv. ASHOK KUMAR BENIWAL

  4. 4.MUSKAN (MINOR)

    Adv. ASHOK KUMAR BENIWAL

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 05-May-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh ThapliyalView PDF

    The court dismissed petitioner Bablu @ Israr's petition to quash an FIR registered under BNS 2023 sections 123, 64(1) and POCSO Act provisions, alleging rape of a minor. Although the complainant and petitioner sought to settle the dispute as close relatives, the court rejected the compounding application, finding the allegations serious and non-compoundable, requiring thorough investigation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 05-May-2026

    Fresh Cases For Admission -3

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Thapliyal

  4. 02-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WPCRL/801/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court dismissed petitioner Bablu @ Israr's petition to quash an FIR registered under BNS 2023 sections 123, 64(1) and POCSO Act provisions, alleging rape of a minor. Although the complainant and petitioner sought to settle the dispute as close relatives, the court rejected the compounding application, finding the allegations serious and non-compoundable, requiring thorough investigation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case