SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(UK) 74

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
KARI SHAMEEM – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND – Respondent


COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS

Office Notes,

reports, orders or proceedings

SL. Dat or directions

No. e and Registrar’s

order with

Signatures 2026:UHC:314

WPCRL No.6 of 2026

Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J.

Mr. Bilal Ahmed, learned counsel for the Petitioner.

2. Mr. Vipul Painuly, learned AGA, for the State of

Uttarakhand/1 and 2.

3. Mr. A.K. Beniwal, learned counsel for the Respondent

No.3.

4. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the Case Crime No.546 of 2023, under Sections 323, 354, 376, 377, 498-A and 506 of IPC, and under Sections ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, at Police Station Gang

Nahar, District Haridwar.

5. Parties are present in person before this Court, who are duly identified by their learned counsel respectively. After interacting with the parties, it seems that the parties do not wish to carry the matter further and have settled their disputes amicably. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds grounds are sufficient for allowing

the compounding applications.

6. Learned State Counsel has vehemently opposed the

compounding application.

7. Today, the matter is listed for dispo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top