RAJENDRA KASHYAP vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Advocate - G.A. — C528 /2203/2025

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 109(2),115,351(3),352. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED on 23rd March 2026.

CNR: UKHC010197092025

CASE DISPOSED

Filing Number

C528 /10180/2025

Filing Date

09-12-2025

Registration No

C528 /2203/2025

Registration Date

09-12-2025

Judge

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashish Naithani

Coram

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashish Naithani

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

23rd March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 109(2),115,351(3),352
Arms Act, 1959 (Act No. 54 of 1959) Section 30

Petitioner(s)

RAJENDRA KASHYAP

Adv. ABHISHEK VERMA

ROOP KISHORE

Respondent(s)

STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Advocate - G.A.

ABHISHEK KUMAR VARDHAN

Adv. DHEERAJ JOSHI

SHIBBU

Adv. DHEERAJ JOSHI

Hearing History

Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashish Naithani

11-12-2025

FRESH CASES FOR ADMISSION -3

23-03-2026

ORDERS ON APPLICATIONS -22

29-12-2025

FRESH CASES FOR ADMISSION -3

Orders

23-03-2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashish Naithani

The Uttarakhand High Court allowed the compounding application and quashed all criminal proceedings against applicants Rajendra Kashyap and another under Criminal Case No. 567 of 2025, after finding that the parties amicably settled their personal dispute. The court held that continuation of proceedings would serve no useful purpose and amount to abuse of process, despite the state's opposition citing non-compoundable offences. 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 all criminal proceedings against applicants Rajendra Kashyap and another under Criminal Case No. 567 of 2025, after finding that the parties amicably settled their personal dispute. The court held that continuation of proceedings would serve no useful purpose and amount to abuse of process, despite the state's opposition citing non-compoundable offences. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Explore other courts

Search Another Case