SHO, Padubidri P.S. vs Sandeep Kulal — 742/2024

Case under Indian Penal Code Section U/S 385. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 12th March 2026.

Evidence Next hearing 12-Mar-2026 this date has passed

C.C. - CRIMINAL CASES

CNR: KAUP020016382024

Filing Number

742/2024

Filing Date

28-May-2024

Registration No

742/2024

Registration Date

28-May-2024

Court

PRL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM COURT, UDUPI

Judge

602-I Addl Sr Civil Judge and Acjm Udupi

Last updated 12-Mar-2026

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section U/S 385

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SHO (Station House Officer), Padubidri P.S.

    Adv. Asst. Public Prosecutor

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Sandeep Kulal

  2. 2.Esha @ Esha Kumar

  3. 3.Breshan D-souza

  4. 4.Bhagavan Das

  5. 5.Shailesh Bangera

  6. 6.Vijayendra

  7. 7.Guru

  8. 8.Anil Kumar

  9. 9.Ramesh

  10. 10.Harish

Case History

  1. 12-Mar-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 06-Mar-2026

    DepositionView PDF

    Summary This is a Kannada language court order (Case No. CC:742/2024) from the Additional Senior Civil Judge and ACJMs Court, Udupi, dated March 6, 2026. The court examined witness Jayaram regarding an extortion case involving allegations that the accused obtained 7 lakhs rupees from the complainant by threatening to defame him. The court found the witness testimony to be unreliable and contradictory, noting inconsistencies in the witness's account of events from 2014 and determining that the witness was providing false evidence to assist the accused. The court declined to grant credibility to the witness's testimony. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 06-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    I Addl Sr Civil Judge and Acjm Udupi

  4. 24-Jan-2026

    Evidence

    I Addl Sr Civil Judge and Acjm Udupi

  5. 18-Dec-2025

    Evidence

    I Addl Sr Civil Judge and Acjm Udupi

  6. 15-Nov-2025

    DepositionView PDF

  7. 15-Nov-2025

    DepositionView PDF

  8. 15-Nov-2025

    Evidence

    I Addl Sr Civil Judge and Acjm Udupi

  9. 16-Oct-2025

    Appearance Of Accussed

    I Addl Sr Civil Judge and Acjm Udupi

  10. 14-Aug-2025

    Appearance Of Accussed

    I Addl Sr Civil Judge and Acjm Udupi

  11. 25-Jul-2025

    Appearance Of Accussed

    I Addl Sr Civil Judge and Acjm Udupi

  12. 17-Jun-2025

    Appearance Of Accussed

    I Addl Sr Civil Judge and Acjm Udupi

  13. 22-Apr-2025

    Appearance Of Accussed

    I Addl Sr Civil Judge and Acjm Udupi

  14. 20-Mar-2025

    Appearance Of Accussed

    I Addl Sr Civil Judge and Acjm Udupi

  15. 20-Feb-2025

    Appearance Of Accussed

    I Addl Sr Civil Judge and Acjm Udupi

  16. 16-Jan-2025

    Evidence

    I Addl Sr Civil Judge and Acjm Udupi

  17. 26-Dec-2024

    Evidence

    I Addl Sr Civil Judge and Acjm Udupi

  18. 21-Nov-2024

    Appearance Of Accussed

    I Addl Sr Civil Judge and Acjm Udupi

  19. 11-Nov-2024

    Appearance Of Accussed

    I Addl Sr Civil Judge and Acjm Udupi

  20. 24-Oct-2024

    Appearance Of Accussed

    I Addl Sr Civil Judge and Acjm Udupi

  21. 13-Sep-2024

    Appearance Of Accussed

    I Addl Sr Civil Judge and Acjm Udupi

  22. 11-Sep-2024

    Appearance Of Accussed

    I Addl Sr Civil Judge and Acjm Udupi

  23. 25-Jul-2024

    Appearance Of Accussed

    I Addl Sr Civil Judge and Acjm Udupi

  24. 22-Jun-2024

    Evidence

    I Addl Sr Civil Judge and Acjm Udupi

  25. 28-May-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  26. 28-May-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. 742/2024

casestatus.in Summary

Summary This is a Kannada language court order (Case No. CC:742/2024) from the Additional Senior Civil Judge and ACJMs Court, Udupi, dated March 6, 2026. The court examined witness Jayaram regarding an extortion case involving allegations that the accused obtained 7 lakhs rupees from the complainant by threatening to defame him. The court found the witness testimony to be unreliable and contradictory, noting inconsistencies in the witness's account of events from 2014 and determining that the witness was providing false evidence to assist the accused. The court declined to grant credibility to the witness's testimony. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case