Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 4745 (UTT)

FAHEEM AHMAD v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

C528/301/2026 · 2026-02-26

Alok Mahra

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS C-528 No. 301 of 2026 Hon ’ble Alok Mah r a, J. Mr. Harshpal Sekhon, learned counsel for the applicants. 2. Mr. Deepak Bisht, learned D.A.G. for the State. 3. The present Criminal Misc. Application under Section 528 of BNSS has been filed by the applicant challenging the chargesheet dated 31.08.2025, summoning order dated 19.11.2025 and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 765 of 2025, State Vs. Faheem Ahmad and Others, under Sections 85, 115(2), 351(2), 352, 123 of BNS and Section 3/ 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the learned Judicial Magistrate, without application of mind, has passed the summoning order dated 19.11.2025. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State would submit that the evidence collected was placed before the learned court below, which, after applying its judicial mind, has rightly summoned the applicant to face trial under Sections 85, 115(2), 351(2), 352, 123 of BNS and Section 3/ 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Perusal of the impugned summoning order dated 19.11.2025 reveals that the court concerned has considered & discussed all relevant aspects. Thus, the view taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned cannot be faulted. This Court does not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned summoning order dated 19.11.2025 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Case No. 765 of 2025, State Vs. Faheem Ahmad and Others, under Sections 85, 115(2), 351(2), 352, 123 of BNS and Section 3/ 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Hence, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. 8. Accordingly, the criminal misc. application fails and is hereby dismissed. ( Alok Mah r a J.) 26.02.2026 Ujjwal