PRADEEP KUMAR vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Advocate - G.A. — C528/1221/2026

Case under Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860) Section 403,420,467,468,471. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED on 03rd June 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: UKHC010094912026

Filing Number

C528/4546/2026

Filing Date

01-Jun-2026

Registration No

C528/1221/2026

Registration Date

01-Jun-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 OTHER COMPLAINT CASE ( 4 )

Judicial Branch

ALL SECTIONS (CIVIL AND CRIMINAL)

Decision Date

03-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED

Last updated 04-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860) Section 403,420,467,468,471

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.PRADEEP KUMAR

    Adv. Vikas Singh Yadav

Respondent(s)

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

  2. 2.TARUN SETH

    Adv. SANJAY KUMAR ARYA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 03-Jun-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok MahraView PDF

    The High Court allowed Pradeep Kumar's application to quash Criminal Case No.273 of 2016 and the associated charge sheet and cognizance order from 2015-2016, following a compromise reached between the petitioner and respondent Tarun Seth. The court permitted compounding of the offences between parties, applying Supreme Court precedent that criminal proceedings may be quashed where compromise renders conviction remote and continuation would cause injustice to the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 03-Jun-2026

    Fresh Cases For Admission -3

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Mahra

  4. 01-Jun-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. C528/1221/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court allowed Pradeep Kumar's application to quash Criminal Case No.273 of 2016 and the associated charge sheet and cognizance order from 2015-2016, following a compromise reached between the petitioner and respondent Tarun Seth. The court permitted compounding of the offences between parties, applying Supreme Court precedent that criminal proceedings may be quashed where compromise renders conviction remote and continuation would cause injustice 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