SANJAY vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Advocate - G.A. — C528/1145/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 74,75,351(2). Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED on 29th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: UKHC010089532026

Filing Number

C528/4290/2026

Filing Date

25-May-2026

Registration No

C528/1145/2026

Registration Date

25-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

29-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED

Last updated 30-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 74,75,351(2)
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (Act No. 32 of 2012) Section 9(N),10

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SANJAY

    Adv. TAPAN SINGH

Respondent(s)

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

  2. 2.KIRTI CHAWLA

    Adv. SANJAY KUMAR CHANDEL

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 29-May-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok MahraView PDF

    The court allowed the compounding application and quashed all criminal proceedings against Sanjay (accused stepfather) in a sexual assault case. The complainant, now married to a third party, denied the allegations were true and stated they were filed under false impression regarding her relationship opposition; with parties reaching settlement, the court found conviction remote and continuation would cause injustice. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 27-May-2026

    Fresh Cases As Defective -236

    Registrar (Judicial)

  4. 25-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. C528/1145/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court allowed the compounding application and quashed all criminal proceedings against Sanjay (accused stepfather) in a sexual assault case. The complainant, now married to a third party, denied the allegations were true and stated they were filed under false impression regarding her relationship opposition; with parties reaching settlement, the court found conviction remote and continuation would cause injustice. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case