State of Kerala (Police), Haripad vs Abhiraj @ Chandu Advocate - THESLEENA P — 200160/2024

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 294(b), 323, 427, 34. Disposed: Uncontested--AQUITTED on 16th March 2026.

CC - CALENDAR CASE

CNR: KLAL230004372024

Case disposed

Filing Number

200436/2024

Filing Date

21-02-2024

Registration No

200160/2024

Registration Date

21-02-2024

Court

JFCM I, Haripad

Judge

1-Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Haripad

Decision Date

16th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--AQUITTED

FIR Details

FIR Number

1095

Police Station

Haripad Police Station

Year

2023

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 294(b), 323, 427, 34
Crl.mp/3212/2025 Classification : Advance Application Section Abhiraj @ Chandu
Crl.mp/3213/2025 Classification : Bail Application Section State of Kerala (Police), HaripadAbhiraj @ Chandu

Petitioner(s)

State of Kerala (Police), Haripad

Adv. The APP, Haripad

Respondent(s)

Abhiraj @ Chandu Advocate - THESLEENA P

Rahul

Adv. THESLEENA P

Hearing History

Judge: 1-Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Haripad

16-03-2026

Disposed

12-03-2026

FOR HEARING

16-02-2026

Issue Summons

27-01-2026

For appearance of the accused

12-01-2026

For appearance of the accused

Final Orders / Judgements

16-03-2026
Order
16-03-2026
Judgement

The Haripad First Class Magistrate acquitted both accused (Abhiraj and Rahul) of charges under IPC sections 294(b), 323, and 427 r/w 34 (obscene language, voluntarily causing hurt, and mischief with common intention). The court found that the prosecution's sole witness (the injured party) turned hostile and could not identify the accused, with the Assistant Public Prosecutor abandoning all remaining witnesses, resulting in insufficient evidence to establish guilt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

The Haripad First Class Magistrate acquitted both accused (Abhiraj and Rahul) of charges under IPC sections 294(b), 323, and 427 r/w 34 (obscene language, voluntarily causing hurt, and mischief with common intention). The court found that the prosecution's sole witness (the injured party) turned hostile and could not identify the accused, with the Assistant Public Prosecutor abandoning all remaining witnesses, resulting in insufficient evidence to establish guilt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

JFCM I, Haripad All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case