MANJEET SINGH vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Advocate - G.A. — WPCRL/828/2026

Case under Information Technology Act, 2000 (Act No. 21 of 2000) Section 66,67(A). Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 08th May 2026.

CNR: UKHC010075382026

CASE DISPOSED

Filing Number

WPCRL/3595/2026

Filing Date

05-05-2026

Registration No

WPCRL/828/2026

Registration Date

05-05-2026

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

08th May 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED

Acts & Sections

Information Technology Act, 2000 (Act No. 21 of 2000) Section 66,67(A)
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 77

Petitioner(s)

MANJEET SINGH

Adv. ANIL ANTHWAL

Respondent(s)

STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Advocate - G.A.

STATION HOUSE OFFICER

Adv. G.A.

SMT. RAJKUMARI

Adv. DHEERAJ JOSHI

Hearing History

Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Thapliyal

07-05-2026

FRESH CASES AS DEFECTIVE -236

Orders

08-05-2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Thapliyal

Case Summary: WPCRL 828/2026 The court allowed petitioner Manjeet Singh's writ petition and compounding application to quash FIR No. 0005 of 2026 (registered at P.S. Badkot, Uttarkashi) for offences under Sections 66, 67(A) IT Act and Section 77 BNS 2023. The court found that the FIR arose from a misunderstanding between the petitioner and complainant (known through Instagram), and since the complainant settled the dispute and withdrew her complaint, no useful purpose remained in pursuing the investigation. The FIR was accordingly quashed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: WPCRL 828/2026 The court allowed petitioner Manjeet Singh's writ petition and compounding application to quash FIR No. 0005 of 2026 (registered at P.S. Badkot, Uttarkashi) for offences under Sections 66, 67(A) IT Act and Section 77 BNS 2023. The court found that the FIR arose from a misunderstanding between the petitioner and complainant (known through Instagram), and since the complainant settled the dispute and withdrew her complaint, no useful purpose remained in pursuing the investigation. The FIR was accordingly quashed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Explore other courts

Search Another Case