SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS UKHC010123832026 2026:UHC:6239 UKHC010123832026 C528/1532/2026 Mohd Salauddin --Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand & others --Respondents Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. Mr. Abhishek Dutt, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Himanshu Sain, learned AGA, for the State of Uttarakhand. 3. The instant petition is moved by the present applicant Mohd. Salauddin S/o Mohd. Asif @ Asiv, challenging the impugned notice dated 16.06.2026 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal, under Section 82 of CrPC. 4. The affidavit in support of this petition is given by the father of the applicant, since the present applicant is not in a country. The impugned notice is issued by the Magistrate concerned since the present applicant since beginning is absconding and left India and residing in Saudi Arabia, though learned counsel for the applicant submits that he is working under a valid contract which is valid upto 12.01.2028. The proclamation notice was issued under Section 82 of CrPC for an appearance of the applicant on 18.07.2026. In paragraph 10, it is stated that the dispute in between the parties were settled in terms of the written compromise dated 21.06.2026. The proceedings initiated against the applicant pursuant to the FIR dated 14.02.2026, bearing FIR No.0001 of 2026, Police Station Kalagarh, District Pauri Garhwal, wherein, the applicant has been implicated for the offence punishable under Section 69 of BNS, 2023. The allegations as it reveals from the FIR is on false pretext of marriage. 5. It has been apprised by the learned AGA that since applicant is not cooperating with the investigation, therefore, investigation could not be completed and due to this reason the impugned notice was issued by the Trial Court. 6. On the previous date, learned counsel for the applicant was directed to get the instructions when the applicant will come to India, he submits that even the deponent i.e. father of the applicant, is not giving any positive instructions. 7. In such view of the matter, since learned counsel for the applicant has not received any instructions from the father of the applicant, this Court has no other option except to dismiss the petition with a direction to the respondents to proceed in accordance with law for ensuring the presence of the present applicant before the Investigating Officer. 8. Subject to the aforesaid directions, the instant petition is dismissed. 9. Interim order dated 17.07.2026, stands vacated. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 22.07.2026 Nitesh/