MOHD. NASEEM vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Advocate - G.A. — C528/920/2026

Case under Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860) Section 323,498-A,504,506. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED on 06th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: UKHC010074322026

Filing Number

C528/3536/2026

Filing Date

05-May-2026

Registration No

C528/920/2026

Registration Date

05-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 323,498-A,504,506

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.MOHD. NASEEM

    Adv. GEETANJALI DHAMI

Respondent(s)

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

  2. 2.RANI BI

    Adv. TANUJA JOSHI

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 06-May-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok MahraView PDF

    The High Court of Uttarakhand allowed the petition and quashed Criminal Case No. 472 of 2025 against petitioner Mohd. Naseem, arising from matrimonial discord with his wife. Although the case involved non-compoundable offence under Section 498-A IPC, the court exercised inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., finding the parties had genuinely reconciled, were living together peacefully, and the complainant/wife no longer wished to prosecute, making continued proceedings futile and harmful to matrimonial harmony. 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. 05-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. C528/920/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court of Uttarakhand allowed the petition and quashed Criminal Case No. 472 of 2025 against petitioner Mohd. Naseem, arising from matrimonial discord with his wife. Although the case involved non-compoundable offence under Section 498-A IPC, the court exercised inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., finding the parties had genuinely reconciled, were living together peacefully, and the complainant/wife no longer wished to prosecute, making continued proceedings futile and harmful to matrimonial harmony. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case