SHARON YAMIN AND ORS vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND — C528/950/2026

Case under Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860) Section 120B,384,419,420,506,468,471. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED on 19th May 2026.

CNR: UKHC010076252026

CASE DISPOSED

Filing Number

C528/3642/2026

Filing Date

07-05-2026

Registration No

C528/950/2026

Registration Date

07-05-2026

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

19th May 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860) Section 120B,384,419,420,506,468,471

Petitioner(s)

SHARON YAMIN AND ORS

Adv. RAJAT MITTAL

Respondent(s)

STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

SUKRANT CHAUDHARY

Adv. RAMJI SHRIVASTAVA

Hearing History

Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Mahra

11-05-2026

FRESH CASES FOR ADMISSION -3

19-05-2026

FRESH CASES FOR ADMISSION -3

Orders

11-05-2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashish Naithani
19-05-2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Mahra

The Uttarakhand High Court allowed the compounding application and quashed Criminal Case No. 7979 of 2024 following an amicable settlement between the estranged spouses. The parties reached a compromise whereby respondent no. 2 agreed to pay ₹25 lakh permanent alimony to applicant no. 1, and both mutually consented to dissolve their marriage under Section 27 of the Uniform Civil Code. The court held that where conviction is remote due to settlement between parties, criminal proceedings should be quashed to avoid prejudice to the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

The Uttarakhand High Court allowed the compounding application and quashed Criminal Case No. 7979 of 2024 following an amicable settlement between the estranged spouses. The parties reached a compromise whereby respondent no. 2 agreed to pay ₹25 lakh permanent alimony to applicant no. 1, and both mutually consented to dissolve their marriage under Section 27 of the Uniform Civil Code. The court held that where conviction is remote due to settlement between parties, criminal proceedings should be quashed to avoid prejudice to the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860) All acts →

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case