ZAFAR AND ORS vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Advocate - G.A. — C528/1099/2026

Case under Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860) Section 364A,386. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED on 22nd May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: UKHC010086522026

Filing Number

C528/4142/2026

Filing Date

20-May-2026

Registration No

C528/1099/2026

Registration Date

20-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

22-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED

Last updated 29-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860) Section 364A,386

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.ZAFAR AND ORS

    Adv. SAURABH KUMAR PANDEY

Respondent(s)

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

  2. 2.MOHD. EZAZ RANA

    Adv. MOHIT PANDEY

  3. 3.GULSHER

    Adv. MOHIT PANDEY

  4. 4.TAUSEEF

    Adv. MOHIT PANDEY

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 22-May-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok MahraView PDF

    Case Summary: C528/1099/2026 The court allowed the compounding application and quashed all criminal proceedings against Zafar and others under Sections 364A and 386 IPC based on an amicable settlement between the parties. Despite the State's objection that these are non-compoundable offences, the court followed Supreme Court precedent permitting their compounding with judicial permission when conviction is remote due to compromise and continuation would cause prejudice to the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 22-May-2026

    Fresh Cases For Admission -3

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Mahra

  4. 20-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. C528/1099/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: C528/1099/2026 The court allowed the compounding application and quashed all criminal proceedings against Zafar and others under Sections 364A and 386 IPC based on an amicable settlement between the parties. Despite the State's objection that these are non-compoundable offences, the court followed Supreme Court precedent permitting their compounding with judicial permission when conviction is remote due to compromise and continuation would cause prejudice to the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case