Uttarakhand High Court
C528/1366/2026 of SADDAM HUSSAIN AND ORS Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND on 14 July 2026
Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS UKHC010106742026 2026:UHC:5740 UKHC010106742026 C528/1366/2026 Saddam Hussain and Ors --Applicants Versus State of Uttarakhand and another --Respondents
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
UKHC010106742026
2026:UHC:5740
UKHC010106742026 C528/1366/2026 Saddam Hussain and Ors --Applicants Versus State of Uttarakhand and another --Respondents
Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
Mr. Shariq Khurshid, learned counsel for the applicants.
2. Mr. Tumul K Nainwal, learned AGA, for the State of Uttarakhand/1.
3. Mr. Azmeen Sheikh, learned counsel holding the brief of Ms. Aklema Parveen, learned counsel for the respondent no.2.
4. In this petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, the present applicants are challenging the entire proceedings of the Criminal Case No.30 of 2025, “State Vs. Saddam Hussain and others” arising out of FIR No.331 of 2019, Police Station Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar.
5. It was already settled before the Panchayat between the parties that the present applicants shall pay a lump sum amount of Rs.3,50,000/- to the respondent no.2/wife, which he is now not agree to pay. From the marriage of both the parties, there is one daughter who is living with the husband. Several grounds has been taken but the fact remains that once the parties have settled their dispute before the Panchayat then the parties should abide by the terms and conditions.
6. On the previous date, on their request, the matter is posted for today i.e. 14.07.2026, so that in terms of the settlement arrived in between the parties before the Panchayat, the applicant (husband) shall pay a sum of Rs.3,50,000/-, but today, he is not ready to pay this much amount by submitting that at the most he can pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-. Respondent No.2/wife is not agreed for such an amount and submits that already a settlement took place for a meagre amount of Rs.3,50,000/- before the Panchayat.
7. Since now there is no such possibility of the amicable settlement and in the present case the applicants are challenging the proceedings on the grounds that without collecting any credible evidence, the chargesheet has been filed in a mechanical manner and the FIR does not discloses any incident of cruelty or harassment and the proceedings have been initiated by the respondent no.2/wife with malafide intent.
8. After gone through with the FIR and the chargesheet, all these grounds as taken in this petition are completely the subject matter of the trial, and it cannot be examined in the petition preferred under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023.
9. In such view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. The Trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial and make all possible efforts to expedite the proceedings.
(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)
14.07.2026 Nitesh/