State of Kerala (Police) vs PRASANTH Advocate - HARSHAKUMAR. K. B — 400487/2022
Case under Police Act, 1960 (kerala) Section 117(e). Disposed: Uncontested--AQUITTED on 31st March 2026.
CC - CALENDAR CASE
CNR: KLAL130014572022
Filing Number
401455/2022
Filing Date
25-06-2022
Registration No
400487/2022
Registration Date
25-06-2022
Court
JFCM II, Cherthala
Judge
1-Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Cherthala
Decision Date
31st March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--AQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
926
Police Station
Arthunkal Police Station
Year
2018
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Kerala (Police)
Adv. Asst. Public Prosecutor II, Cherthala
Respondent(s)
PRASANTH Advocate - HARSHAKUMAR. K. B
MURALEEDHARAN
Adv. HARSHAKUMAR. K. B
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Cherthala
Disposed
Order/ Judgement
Order/ Judgement
FOR HEARING
Order/ Judgement
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 31-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 27-03-2026 | Order/ Judgement |
| 25-03-2026 | Order/ Judgement |
| 18-03-2026 | FOR HEARING |
| 12-03-2026 | Order/ Judgement |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary The Cherthala First Class Magistrate Court acquitted accused Prasanth under Section 248(1) CrPC of charges under Section 117(e) of the Kerala Police Act for allegedly obstructing a police officer's duty at a flood relief camp in August 2018. The court found that the prosecution failed to provide documentary evidence of the officer's official duty status, failed to establish the accused's identity conclusively, and could not explain the manner in which duty obstruction occurred, thus failing to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary The Cherthala First Class Magistrate Court acquitted accused Prasanth under Section 248(1) CrPC of charges under Section 117(e) of the Kerala Police Act for allegedly obstructing a police officer's duty at a flood relief camp in August 2018. The court found that the prosecution failed to provide documentary evidence of the officer's official duty status, failed to establish the accused's identity conclusively, and could not explain the manner in which duty obstruction occurred, thus failing to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts