STATE BY NANJANGUD RURAL P.S. vs Shreedhara — 8831/2022

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 324,323,504,34,341,506. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 02nd May 2026.

Case disposed

C.C. - CRIMINAL CASES

CNR: KAMS510123252022

e-Filing Number

15-09-2022

Filing Number

8833/2022

Filing Date

15-Sep-2022

Registration No

8831/2022

Registration Date

16-Sep-2022

Court

PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, NANJANGUD

Judge

449-Prl CIVIL Judge And JMFC Nanjangud

Decision Date

02-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ACQUITTED

Last updated 18-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

0067

Police Station

NANJANAGUD RURAL PS

Year

2022

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 324,323,504,34,341,506

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.STATE BY NANJANGUD RURAL P.S.

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Shreedhara

  2. 2.Nagamma

  3. 3.Shobha

  4. 4.Mangalamma

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 02-May-2026

    JudgmentView PDF

    Case Summary: 8831/2022 Court Decision: The court acquitted all four defendants (Shreedhara, Nagamma, Shobha, and Mangamma) of charges under IPC Sections 504, 341, 323, 324, and 506 with Section 34. Key Reasoning: The prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The primary witness (PW1/complainant Mahadevu) testified that the defendants merely quarreled with him over a shop rent dispute but denied being abused, beaten, threatened with death, or unlawfully restrained. His testimony did not support any of the criminal allegations. Since the prosecution could not establish the essential ingredients of the offenses charged, the defendants were entitled to the benefit of doubt and acquitted. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 02-May-2026

    Disposed

    Prl CIVIL Judge And JMFC Nanjangud

  4. 04-Apr-2026

    DepositionView PDF

  5. 04-Apr-2026

    Judgement

    Prl CIVIL Judge And JMFC Nanjangud

  6. 17-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    Prl CIVIL Judge And JMFC Nanjangud

  7. 04-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    Prl CIVIL Judge And JMFC Nanjangud

  8. 03-Feb-2026

    Call On

    Prl CIVIL Judge And JMFC Nanjangud

  9. 20-Dec-2025

    Call On

    Prl CIVIL Judge And JMFC Nanjangud

  10. 05-Nov-2025

    Evidence

    Prl CIVIL Judge And JMFC Nanjangud

  11. 09-Sep-2025

    Evidence

    Prl CIVIL Judge And JMFC Nanjangud

  12. 14-Jul-2025

    Evidence

    Prl CIVIL Judge And JMFC Nanjangud

  13. 03-Jun-2025

    Evidence

    Prl CIVIL Judge And JMFC Nanjangud

  14. 01-Apr-2025

    ChargeView PDF

  15. 01-Apr-2025

    Evidence

    Prl CIVIL Judge And JMFC Nanjangud

  16. 29-Jan-2025

    Framing Of Charge Or Plea

    Prl CIVIL Judge And JMFC Nanjangud

  17. 25-Nov-2024

    Framing Of Charge Or Plea

    Prl CIVIL Judge And JMFC Nanjangud

  18. 09-Sep-2024

    Framing Of Charge Or Plea

    Prl CIVIL Judge And JMFC Nanjangud

  19. 30-May-2024

    Framing Of Charge Or Plea

    Prl CIVIL Judge And JMFC Nanjangud

  20. 04-May-2024

    Framing Of Charge Or Plea

    Prl CIVIL Judge And JMFC Nanjangud

  21. 06-Feb-2024

    Hearing

    Prl CIVIL Judge And JMFC Nanjangud

  22. 27-Nov-2023

    Hearing

    Prl CIVIL Judge And JMFC Nanjangud

  23. 11-Sep-2023

    Hearing

    Prl CIVIL Judge And JMFC Nanjangud

  24. 05-Apr-2023

    Framing Of Charge Or Plea

    Prl CIVIL Judge And JMFC Nanjangud

  25. 03-Apr-2023

    Framing Of Charge Or Plea

    Prl CIVIL Judge And JMFC Nanjangud

  26. 22-Dec-2022

    Framing Of Charge Or Plea

    Prl CIVIL Judge And JMFC Nanjangud

  27. 23-Sep-2022

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  28. 15-Sep-2022

    Case filed

    Registration No. 8831/2022

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: 8831/2022 Court Decision: The court acquitted all four defendants (Shreedhara, Nagamma, Shobha, and Mangamma) of charges under IPC Sections 504, 341, 323, 324, and 506 with Section 34. Key Reasoning: The prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The primary witness (PW1/complainant Mahadevu) testified that the defendants merely quarreled with him over a shop rent dispute but denied being abused, beaten, threatened with death, or unlawfully restrained. His testimony did not support any of the criminal allegations. Since the prosecution could not establish the essential ingredients of the offenses charged, the defendants were entitled to the benefit of doubt and acquitted. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case