State of Kerala (Police) vs Safeena Anzil Advocate - SATHEESH CHANDRA — 700369/2022

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 341,353. Disposed: Uncontested--AQUITTED on 13th April 2026.

CC - CALENDAR CASE

CNR: KLAL090010312022

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

701041/2022

Filing Date

06-06-2022

Registration No

700369/2022

Registration Date

06-06-2022

Court

JFCM, Ambalapuzha

Judge

1-Judicial First Class Magistrate

Decision Date

13th April 2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--AQUITTED

FIR Details

FIR Number

13

Police Station

Vanitha Police Station

Year

2022

Acts & Sections

IPC Section 341,353
Crl.MP(Ab)/1/2026 Classification : Absent Petition Section State of Kerala (Police)Safeena Anzil
Crl.MP/1/2026 Classification : Warrant Recall Petition Section State of Kerala (Police)Safeena Anzil

Petitioner(s)

State of Kerala (Police)

Adv. Asst. Public Prosecutor, Ambalappuzha

Respondent(s)

Safeena Anzil Advocate - SATHEESH CHANDRA

Hearing History

Judge: 1-Judicial First Class Magistrate

13-04-2026

Disposed

08-04-2026

Order/Judgement

06-04-2026

FOR HEARING

01-04-2026

FOR HEARING

27-03-2026

FOR HEARING

Final Orders / Judgements

13-04-2026
Judgement

Summary The Judicial Magistrate Court of Ambalapuzha acquitted Safeena Ansal of charges under Sections 341 and 353 of the IPC, finding the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted critical evidentiary gaps: the aggrieved witness (PW2) could not identify the accused, key witnesses turned hostile, the original complaint was not produced, and no documents proved PW2's official duty status on the date in question. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Judicial Magistrate Court of Ambalapuzha acquitted Safeena Ansal of charges under Sections 341 and 353 of the IPC, finding the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted critical evidentiary gaps: the aggrieved witness (PW2) could not identify the accused, key witnesses turned hostile, the original complaint was not produced, and no documents proved PW2's official duty status on the date in question. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

JFCM, Ambalapuzha All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case