SHO Mattannur vs Sreejesh C — 905/2017

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 341,323,325,341. Disposed: Uncontested--ACQUITTED on 23rd March 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CALENDAR CASE

CNR: KLKN240006302017

Filing Number

905/2017

Filing Date

08-May-2017

Registration No

905/2017

Registration Date

08-May-2017

Court

J F C M, Mattannur

Judge

1-Judicial First Class Magistrate

Decision Date

23-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--ACQUITTED

Last updated 29-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

111

Police Station

Mattanur Police Station

Year

2017

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 341,323,325,341

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SHO (Station House Officer) Mattannur

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Sreejesh C

  2. 2.Vaishnav C

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 23-Mar-2026

    Judgement

    Case Summary: CC.905/2017 Decision: Both accused Sreejesh C and Vaishnav C were acquitted of charges under IPC Sections 341 (wrongful restraint), 323 (causing hurt), and 325 (causing grievous hurt) with common intention. The court found the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt due to the absence of direct evidence from material eyewitnesses. Key Reasoning: Though nine witnesses were cited, the prosecution could only examine two police officers who testified only about procedural investigations, not the actual incident. The injured complainant, eyewitness, and scene attestation witness could not be produced despite repeated efforts. Without their testimony, no reliable evidence connected the accused to the alleged assault occurring on January 1, 2017. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 23-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Judicial First Class Magistrate

  4. 18-Mar-2026

    Order/Judgement

    Judicial First Class Magistrate

  5. 11-Mar-2026

    Examination of the Accused U/S 313 Cr.PC

    Judicial First Class Magistrate

  6. 27-Feb-2026

    Examination of the Accused U/S 313 Cr.PC

    Judicial First Class Magistrate

  7. 03-Feb-2026

    for verification

    Judicial First Class Magistrate

  8. 02-Dec-2025

    Repeat bailable warrant to witness

    Judicial First Class Magistrate

  9. 07-Nov-2025

    Adjourned

    Judicial First Class Magistrate

  10. 30-Aug-2025

    No sitting notified

    Judicial First Class Magistrate

  11. 26-Jul-2025

    Repeat bailable warrant to witness

    Judicial First Class Magistrate

  12. 21-Jun-2025

    Repeat bailable warrant to witness

    Judicial First Class Magistrate

  13. 15-May-2025

    Issue Bailable warrant to witness

    Judicial First Class Magistrate

  14. 06-May-2025

    Await summons

    Judicial First Class Magistrate

  15. 15-Apr-2025

    Produce Witness

    Judicial First Class Magistrate

  16. 08-Apr-2025

    for verification

    Judicial First Class Magistrate

  17. 07-Mar-2025

    Repeat Summons

    Judicial First Class Magistrate

  18. 22-Feb-2025

    Issue NBW To Witness

    Judicial First Class Magistrate

  19. 13-Dec-2024

    Issue NBW To Witness

    Judicial First Class Magistrate

  20. 29-Oct-2024

    Repeat bailable warrant to witness

    Judicial First Class Magistrate

  21. 06-Sep-2024

    Repeat NBW

    Judicial First Class Magistrate

  22. 09-Jul-2024

    Repeat NBW

    Judicial First Class Magistrate

  23. 29-May-2024

    Issue Bailable warrant to witness

    Judicial First Class Magistrate

  24. 12-Apr-2024

    Issue Bailable warrant to witness

    Judicial First Class Magistrate

  25. 19-Mar-2024

    Issue NBW To Witness

    Judicial First Class Magistrate

  26. 27-Feb-2024

    Issue Bailable warrant to witness

    Judicial First Class Magistrate

  27. 13-Feb-2024

    Issue Bailable warrant to witness

    Judicial First Class Magistrate

  28. 19-Dec-2023

    Repeat NBW

    Judicial First Class Magistrate

  29. 12-Sep-2023

    Repeat NBW

    Judicial First Class Magistrate

  30. 19-May-2023

    Issue NBW To Witness

    Judicial First Class Magistrate

  31. 27-Dec-2022

    Issue Bailable warrant to witness

    Judicial First Class Magistrate

  32. 13-Oct-2022

    call on

    Judicial First Class Magistrate

  33. 22-Jul-2022

    call on

    Judicial First Class Magistrate

  34. 01-Apr-2022

    Repeat Summons

    Judicial First Class Magistrate

  35. 17-Feb-2022

    Adjourned

    Judicial First Class Magistrate

  36. 20-Dec-2021

    Bound Over

    Judicial First Class Magistrate

  37. 06-Nov-2021

    Repeat Summons

    Judicial First Class Magistrate

  38. 14-Sep-2021

    Adjourned

    Judicial First Class Magistrate

  39. 14-May-2021

    Adjourned

    Judicial First Class Magistrate

  40. 28-Jan-2021

    Adjourned

    Judicial First Class Magistrate

  41. 03-Nov-2020

    Adjourned

    Judicial First Class Magistrate

  42. 04-Aug-2020

    No sitting notified

    Judicial First Class Magistrate

  43. 21-Apr-2020

    To summon witness

    Judicial First Class Magistrate

  44. 31-Dec-2019

    To summon witness

    Judicial First Class Magistrate

  45. 17-Sep-2019

    For evidence

    Judicial First Class Magistrate

  46. 12-Aug-2019

    Declared Holidays

    Judicial First Class Magistrate

  47. 27-Apr-2019

    For framing charge

    Judicial First Class Magistrate

  48. 10-Jan-2019

    For framing charge

    Judicial First Class Magistrate

  49. 12-Oct-2018

    call on

    Judicial First Class Magistrate

  50. 09-Aug-2018

    Issue fresh warrant

    Judicial First Class Magistrate

  51. 24-May-2018

    Issue fresh warrant

    Judicial First Class Magistrate

  52. 27-Apr-2018

    Repeat NBW

    Judicial First Class Magistrate

  53. 07-Dec-2017

    Repeat NBW

    Judicial First Class Magistrate

  54. 28-Sep-2017

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  55. 08-May-2017

    Case filed

    Registration No. 905/2017

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CC.905/2017 Decision: Both accused Sreejesh C and Vaishnav C were acquitted of charges under IPC Sections 341 (wrongful restraint), 323 (causing hurt), and 325 (causing grievous hurt) with common intention. The court found the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt due to the absence of direct evidence from material eyewitnesses. Key Reasoning: Though nine witnesses were cited, the prosecution could only examine two police officers who testified only about procedural investigations, not the actual incident. The injured complainant, eyewitness, and scene attestation witness could not be produced despite repeated efforts. Without their testimony, no reliable evidence connected the accused to the alleged assault occurring on January 1, 2017. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case