DEVA SISH PRADHAN vs SANJAY SINGH AND OTHERS — 1002113/2010

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 461,379. Disposed: Contested--JUDGEMENT on 11th March 2026.

Case disposed

CRI. CASE

CNR: BRMB210005802010

Filing Number

1002113/2010

Filing Date

31-Aug-2010

Registration No

1002113/2010

Registration Date

31-Aug-2010

Court

Benipatti CJM Division

Judge

14-Judicial Magistrate 1st Calss

Decision Date

11-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGEMENT

Last updated 17-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

120

Police Station

BENIPATTI

Year

2010

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 461,379

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.DEVA SISH PRADHAN

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.SANJAY SINGH AND OTHERS

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 11-Mar-2026

    JudgmentView PDF

    Summary The Benipatti Judicial Magistrate acquitted all three accused persons—Sanjay Singh, Md. Moti, and Md. Moulavi—of charges under IPC Sections 461 (burglary) and 379 (theft) for a 2010 mobile phone theft. The court found the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, as the only witness (the informant) turned hostile, refused to support the charges, and admitted compromising the case, leaving no credible evidence of the accused's culpability. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 11-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Judicial Magistrate 1st Calss

  4. 10-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate 1st Calss

  5. 20-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate 1st Calss

  6. 17-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate 1st Calss

  7. 16-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate 1st Calss

  8. 13-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate 1st Calss

  9. 12-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate 1st Calss

  10. 11-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate 1st Calss

  11. 10-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate 1st Calss

  12. 09-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate 1st Calss

  13. 07-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate 1st Calss

  14. 06-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate 1st Calss

  15. 05-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate 1st Calss

  16. 03-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate 1st Calss

  17. 02-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate 1st Calss

  18. 30-Jan-2026

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate 1st Calss

  19. 29-Jan-2026

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate 1st Calss

  20. 28-Jan-2026

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate 1st Calss

  21. 27-Jan-2026

    Charge

    Judicial Magistrate 1st Calss

  22. 24-Jan-2026

    Charge

    Judicial Magistrate 1st Calss

  23. 22-Jan-2026

    Charge

    Judicial Magistrate 1st Calss

  24. 21-Jan-2026

    Charge

    Judicial Magistrate 1st Calss

  25. 20-Jan-2026

    Charge

    Judicial Magistrate 1st Calss

  26. 19-Jan-2026

    Charge

    Judicial Magistrate 1st Calss

  27. 31-Oct-2025

    Appearence

    Judicial Magistrate 1st Calss

  28. 12-Aug-2025

    Appearence

    Judicial Magistrate 1st Calss

  29. 17-Jun-2025

    Appearence

    Judicial Magistrate 1st Calss

  30. 17-Apr-2025

    Appearence

    Judicial Magistrate 1st Calss

  31. 04-Apr-2025

    Appearence

    Judicial Magistrate 1st Calss

  32. 24-Feb-2025

    Appearence

    Judicial Magistrate 1st Calss

  33. 03-Jan-2025

    Appearence

    Judicial Magistrate 1st Calss

  34. 24-Sep-2024

    Appearence

    Judicial Magistrate 1st Class-II

  35. 15-Jun-2024

    Appearence

  36. 20-Mar-2024

    Appearence

    Judicial Magistrate 1st Class-VIII

  37. 02-Feb-2024

    Appearence

    Judicial Magistrate 1st Class-VIII

  38. 21-Nov-2023

    Appearence

    Judicial Magistrate 1st Class-VIII

  39. 22-Aug-2023

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  40. 31-Aug-2010

    Case filed

    Registration No. 1002113/2010

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Benipatti Judicial Magistrate acquitted all three accused persons—Sanjay Singh, Md. Moti, and Md. Moulavi—of charges under IPC Sections 461 (burglary) and 379 (theft) for a 2010 mobile phone theft. The court found the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, as the only witness (the informant) turned hostile, refused to support the charges, and admitted compromising the case, leaving no credible evidence of the accused's culpability. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case