KAMESWAR MEHTA vs TUNNU@ RUPESH MEHTA — 486/2017

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 147,148,341,323,325,504,506,34. Disposed: Contested--JUDGEMENT on 28th April 2026.

Case disposed

CRI. CASE

CNR: BRSU110000882017

Filing Number

486/2017

Filing Date

14-Jul-2017

Registration No

486/2017

Registration Date

17-Oct-2018

Court

Birpur CJM Division

Judge

3-Judicial Magistrate 1st Class-I

Decision Date

28-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGEMENT

Last updated 14-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

36

Police Station

KARJAIN

Year

2017

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 147,148,341,323,325,504,506,34

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.KAMESWAR MEHTA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.TUNNU@ RUPESH MEHTA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 28-Apr-2026

    JudgmentView PDF

    Case 486/2017 Summary Decision: All seven accused—Tullu@ Rupesh Mehta, Ramjeevan Mehta, Jagdish Mehta, Kadamlal Mehta, Shankar Mehta, Rahul Mehta, and Badri Mehta—were acquitted of charges under IPC sections 147, 148, 341, 323, 325, 504, and 506/34. Key Reasoning: The court found insufficient evidence to prove the prosecution's case beyond reasonable doubt. Only the informant testified; critical witnesses (investigating officer, medical officer) were not examined despite summons. The informant contradicted himself on recall, admitting compromise with accused and attributing injuries to a fall. Given the underlying land dispute and counter-case, the court deemed false implication possible and granted benefit of doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 28-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    Judicial Magistrate 1st Class-I

  4. 20-Apr-2026

    Statement U/S.313 Cr.p.c.

    Judicial Magistrate 1st Class-I

  5. 10-Apr-2026

    Statement U/S.313 Cr.p.c.

    Judicial Magistrate 1st Class-I

  6. 16-Mar-2026

    Statement U/S.313 Cr.p.c.

    Judicial Magistrate 1st Class-I

  7. 23-Feb-2026

    Statement U/S.313 Cr.p.c.

    Judicial Magistrate 1st Class-I

  8. 02-Feb-2026

    Statement U/S.313 Cr.p.c.

    Judicial Magistrate 1st Class-I

  9. 15-Dec-2025

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate 1st Class-I

  10. 15-Oct-2025

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate 1st Class-I

  11. 28-Aug-2025

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate 1st Class-I

  12. 24-Jul-2025

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate 1st Class-I

  13. 02-Jun-2025

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate 1st Class-I

  14. 08-May-2025

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate 1st Class-I

  15. 11-Mar-2025

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate 1st Class-I

  16. 07-Jan-2025

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate 1st Class-I

  17. 05-Oct-2024

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate 1st Class-I

  18. 23-Aug-2024

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate 1st Class-I

  19. 03-Aug-2024

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate 1st Class-I

  20. 20-Jun-2024

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate 1st Class-I

  21. 26-Apr-2024

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate 1st Class-I

  22. 17-Feb-2024

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate 1st Class-I

  23. 05-Dec-2023

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate 1st Class-I

  24. 07-Oct-2023

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate 1st Class-I

  25. 14-Aug-2023

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate 1st Class-I

  26. 19-Jun-2023

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate 1st Class-I

  27. 18-Jun-2023

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate 1st Class-I

  28. 18-Apr-2023

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate 1st Class-I

  29. 02-Mar-2023

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate 1st Class-I

  30. 21-Jan-2023

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate 1st Class-I

  31. 14-Dec-2022

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate 1st Class-I

  32. 15-Nov-2022

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate 1st Class-I

  33. 22-Sep-2022

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate 1st Class-I

  34. 28-Jul-2022

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate 1st Class-I

  35. 06-Jun-2022

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate 1st Class-I

  36. 06-Apr-2022

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate 1st Calss

  37. 07-Feb-2022

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate 1st Calss

  38. 02-Dec-2021

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate 1st Class-I

  39. 10-Sep-2021

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate 1st Class-I

  40. 13-Jul-2021

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate 1st Class-I

  41. 17-May-2021

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate 1st Class-I

  42. 06-Mar-2021

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate 1st Class-I

  43. 18-Jan-2021

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate 1st Class-I

  44. 24-Nov-2020

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate 1st Class-I

  45. 15-Sep-2020

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate 1st Class-I

  46. 16-Jul-2020

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate 1st Class-I

  47. 13-May-2020

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate 1st Class-I

  48. 24-Mar-2020

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate 1st Class-I

  49. 02-Feb-2020

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate 1st Class-I

  50. 06-Dec-2019

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate 1st Class-I

  51. 14-Nov-2019

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate 1st Class-I

  52. 18-Sep-2019

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate 1st Class-I

  53. 20-Jul-2019

    Hearing-77

    Judicial Magistrate 1st Class-I

  54. 25-Jan-2019

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  55. 14-Jul-2017

    Case filed

    Registration No. 486/2017

casestatus.in Summary

Case 486/2017 Summary Decision: All seven accused—Tullu@ Rupesh Mehta, Ramjeevan Mehta, Jagdish Mehta, Kadamlal Mehta, Shankar Mehta, Rahul Mehta, and Badri Mehta—were acquitted of charges under IPC sections 147, 148, 341, 323, 325, 504, and 506/34. Key Reasoning: The court found insufficient evidence to prove the prosecution's case beyond reasonable doubt. Only the informant testified; critical witnesses (investigating officer, medical officer) were not examined despite summons. The informant contradicted himself on recall, admitting compromise with accused and attributing injuries to a fall. Given the underlying land dispute and counter-case, the court deemed false implication possible and granted benefit of doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case