State of Kerala (Police) vs Lijeesh @ Kuttappi — 666/2021
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 354(A), 354(D), 506(1), 509,34. Disposed: Uncontested--AQUITTED U/S 248(1) CR.PC on 16th April 2026.
CC - CALENDAR CASE
CNR: KLKK330008582021
Filing Number
666/2021
Filing Date
09-04-2021
Registration No
666/2021
Registration Date
09-04-2021
Court
Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Nadapuram
Judge
1-Judicial First Class Magistrate
Decision Date
16th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--AQUITTED U/S 248(1) CR.PC
FIR Details
FIR Number
8
Police Station
Valayam PS
Year
2020
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Kerala (Police)
Adv. N. Manojan, APP Grade II
Respondent(s)
Lijeesh @ Kuttappi
Sunil P.K
Ragil
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Judicial First Class Magistrate
Disposed
Order/ Judgement
Show casue to Investigating Officer
Await warrent
Repeat Summons
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 16-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 10-04-2026 | Order/ Judgement |
| 16-03-2026 | Show casue to Investigating Officer |
| 02-03-2026 | Await warrent |
| 16-02-2026 | Repeat Summons |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: State of Kerala v. Lijeesh @ Kuttappi (666/2021) The court acquitted all three accused of charges under IPC sections 354A, 354D, 506(I), 509 read with 34, and Kerala Police Act 120(o). The prosecution failed to establish its case: the primary complainant retracted her allegations stating accused weren't involved; key witness PW2 was unavailable for cross-examination, rendering his evidence inadmissible; and no evidence proved the accused circulated the alleged audio clip through WhatsApp despite seizure of their mobile phones. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: State of Kerala v. Lijeesh @ Kuttappi (666/2021) The court acquitted all three accused of charges under IPC sections 354A, 354D, 506(I), 509 read with 34, and Kerala Police Act 120(o). The prosecution failed to establish its case: the primary complainant retracted her allegations stating accused weren't involved; key witness PW2 was unavailable for cross-examination, rendering his evidence inadmissible; and no evidence proved the accused circulated the alleged audio clip through WhatsApp despite seizure of their mobile phones. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts