AMANDEEP SINGH RANDHAWA AND ANR vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Advocate - G.A. — C528/1133/2026
Case under Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860) Section 452,504,506. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED on 03rd June 2026.
CNR: UKHC010088442026
Filing Number
C528/4234/2026
Filing Date
22-05-2026
Registration No
C528/1133/2026
Registration Date
22-05-2026
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
03rd June 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISPOSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
AMANDEEP SINGH RANDHAWA AND ANR
Adv. GAURAV PALIWAL
Respondent(s)
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Advocate - G.A.
PARAMJEET SINGH
Adv. NALIN SAUN
Hearing History
Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Mahra
FRESH CASES FOR ADMISSION -3
FRESH CASES FOR ADMISSION -3
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 26-05-2026 | FRESH CASES FOR ADMISSION -3 |
| 03-06-2026 | FRESH CASES FOR ADMISSION -3 |
Orders
The Uttarakhand High Court allowed the compounding application and quashed Criminal Case No. 3808 of 2018 against Amandeep Singh Randhawa and another, who were accused of unlawful entry, abuse, and threats against the original complainant and her family. Following Supreme Court precedent that permits quashing proceedings where compromise makes conviction remote, the court accepted the parties' amicable settlement and permitted the offences to be compounded, noting the complainant's death during proceedings and respondent no. 2's stated unwillingness to pursue the case further. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The Uttarakhand High Court allowed the compounding application and quashed Criminal Case No. 3808 of 2018 against Amandeep Singh Randhawa and another, who were accused of unlawful entry, abuse, and threats against the original complainant and her family. Following Supreme Court precedent that permits quashing proceedings where compromise makes conviction remote, the court accepted the parties' amicable settlement and permitted the offences to be compounded, noting the complainant's death during proceedings and respondent no. 2's stated unwillingness to pursue the case further. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts