State of Kerala (Police) vs Radhamaniyamma Advocate - G Biju — 100129/2016
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 447,427. Disposed: Uncontested--AQUITTED on 28th April 2026.
ST - SUMMARY TRIAL
CNR: KLKM360002742016
Filing Number
100129/2016
Filing Date
10-03-2016
Registration No
100129/2016
Registration Date
10-03-2016
Court
Gram Nyayalaya, Chadayamangalam
Judge
1-Nyayadhikari
Decision Date
28th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--AQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
1020
Police Station
Chadayamangalam
Year
2011
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Kerala (Police)
Adv. Mithra. J
Respondent(s)
Radhamaniyamma Advocate - G Biju
Rajendran Pillai
Adv. G Biju
Ajayakumar
Adv. G Biju
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Nyayadhikari
Disposed
FOR HEARING
82-83 Steps
NBW to cws
82-83 Steps
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 28-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 24-04-2026 | FOR HEARING |
| 13-04-2026 | 82-83 Steps |
| 27-03-2026 | NBW to cws |
| 13-03-2026 | 82-83 Steps |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary of Case ST 129/2016 The court acquitted all three accused (Radhamaniyamma, Rajendran Pillai, and Ajayakumar) of charges under IPC Sections 427 and 34, finding that the prosecution failed to prove the alleged destruction of property and criminal intimidation due to lack of witness testimony. The court discharged the accused unconditionally under Section 255(1) CrPC and cancelled their bail bonds, as the prosecution presented no evidence to substantiate charges that the accused had trespassed and damaged hedges and rubber plants on the complainant's property. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary of Case ST 129/2016 The court acquitted all three accused (Radhamaniyamma, Rajendran Pillai, and Ajayakumar) of charges under IPC Sections 427 and 34, finding that the prosecution failed to prove the alleged destruction of property and criminal intimidation due to lack of witness testimony. The court discharged the accused unconditionally under Section 255(1) CrPC and cancelled their bail bonds, as the prosecution presented no evidence to substantiate charges that the accused had trespassed and damaged hedges and rubber plants on the complainant's property. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts