AMIT KUMAR AND ORS vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Advocate - G.A. — C528/905/2026

Case under Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860) Section 498-A,323,419,504. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED on 06th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: UKHC010073872026

Filing Number

C528/3507/2026

Filing Date

04-May-2026

Registration No

C528/905/2026

Registration Date

04-May-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

06-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED

Last updated 06-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860) Section 498-A,323,419,504
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (Act No. 28 of 1961) Section 3/4

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.AMIT KUMAR AND ORS

    Adv. SHARIQ KHURSHID

Respondent(s)

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

  2. 2.ANITA BHARTI

    Adv. PRINCE CHAUHAN

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 06-May-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok MahraView PDF

    The court allowed the compounding application and quashed Criminal Case No.1313 of 2023 after the parties reached an amicable settlement involving ₹20 lakh permanent alimony (₹10 lakh already paid, balance before second motion). The court found that continuation of proceedings would cause prejudice to the accused where conviction was remote, and respondent no.2 no longer wished to pursue the case. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 06-May-2026

    Fresh Cases For Admission -3

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Mahra

  4. 04-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. C528/905/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court allowed the compounding application and quashed Criminal Case No.1313 of 2023 after the parties reached an amicable settlement involving ₹20 lakh permanent alimony (₹10 lakh already paid, balance before second motion). The court found that continuation of proceedings would cause prejudice to the accused where conviction was remote, and respondent no.2 no longer wished to pursue the case. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case