SHO, CHAKKARAKKAL P.S vs BIJESH. C — 218/2023
Case under Ipc 1860 Section 341, 323, 324, 294(b), 34. Disposed: Uncontested--AQUITTED on 31st March 2026.
CC - CALENDAR CASE
CNR: KLKN150049082024
Filing Number
3881/2024
Filing Date
03-12-2024
Registration No
218/2023
Registration Date
03-12-2024
Court
Judicial First Class Magistrate Court 3 Kannur
Judge
7-Judicial First Class Magistrate No.3, Kannur
Decision Date
31st March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--AQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
1099
Police Station
CHAKKARAKKALLU
Year
2023
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
SHO (Station House Officer), CHAKKARAKKAL P.S
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
BIJESH. C
JIJOY T J
PRASANTH. U
Hearing History
Judge: 7-Judicial First Class Magistrate No.3, Kannur
Disposed
Order/ Judgement
FOR HEARING
for evidence
Issue NBW
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 31-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 26-03-2026 | Order/ Judgement |
| 13-03-2026 | FOR HEARING |
| 11-02-2026 | for evidence |
| 22-01-2026 | Issue NBW |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: CC 218/2023 Court Decision: The Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kannur acquitted all three accused (Bijesh C, Jijoy T J, and Prasanth U) of charges under IPC sections 341 (wrongful restraint), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 324 (causing hurt by dangerous weapon), and 294(b) (obscene words), finding them not guilty due to insufficient evidence. The prosecution's case collapsed when both eyewitnesses (the de facto complainant and injured party) turned hostile, could not identify the assailants due to darkness, and explicitly stated they had not named the accused to police; the matter had been settled through mediation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: CC 218/2023 Court Decision: The Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kannur acquitted all three accused (Bijesh C, Jijoy T J, and Prasanth U) of charges under IPC sections 341 (wrongful restraint), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 324 (causing hurt by dangerous weapon), and 294(b) (obscene words), finding them not guilty due to insufficient evidence. The prosecution's case collapsed when both eyewitnesses (the de facto complainant and injured party) turned hostile, could not identify the assailants due to darkness, and explicitly stated they had not named the accused to police; the matter had been settled through mediation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts