State of Kerala Police vs NASAR Advocate - RESHMA C — 1074/2016
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 366, 348, 354, 376(g). Disposed: Uncontested--DISCHARGED on 27th April 2026.
SC - SESSIONS CASE
CNR: KLKN010044702016
Filing Number
996668/2016
Filing Date
20-12-2016
Registration No
1074/2016
Registration Date
20-12-2016
Court
District Court and Sessions Court / Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thalassery
Judge
5-4th Additional District Judge
Decision Date
27th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--DISCHARGED
FIR Details
FIR Number
623
Police Station
Thalassery Police Station
Year
2000
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Kerala Police
Adv. Reshma A(Additional Public Prosecutor)
Respondent(s)
NASAR Advocate - RESHMA C
Hearing History
Judge: 5-4th Additional District Judge
Disposed
Orders in CMP
Call with MP
Call with MP
Call with MP
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 27-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 16-04-2026 | Orders in CMP |
| 01-04-2026 | Call with MP |
| 30-03-2026 | Call with MP |
| 24-03-2026 | Call with MP |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: State of Kerala Police v. NASAR Advocate - RESHMA C (1074/2016) The Thalassery Court discharged accused Nasar (Accused No. 3) under Section 227 CrPC, finding no prima facie case for trial on charges of wrongful confinement and rape. The court held that the deceased complainant's Section 161 statement cannot substitute for live testimony and lacks legal admissibility for charge-framing. Excluding this statement, no witness evidence connects the accused to the alleged offences—only his employment as a room boy at the lodge. The court ruled that framing charges without legally translatable evidence would violate Article 21 and constitute abuse of process, especially given co-accused acquittals on identical facts. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case Summary: State of Kerala Police v. NASAR Advocate - RESHMA C (1074/2016) The Thalassery Court discharged accused Nasar (Accused No. 3) under Section 227 CrPC, finding no prima facie case for trial on charges of wrongful confinement and rape. The court held that the deceased complainant's Section 161 statement cannot substitute for live testimony and lacks legal admissibility for charge-framing. Excluding this statement, no witness evidence connects the accused to the alleged offences—only his employment as a room boy at the lodge. The court ruled that framing charges without legally translatable evidence would violate Article 21 and constitute abuse of process, especially given co-accused acquittals on identical facts. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts