Jayan P P vs Joshy Mathew Advocate - Jomi C J, Jomi C J, Jomi C JRAJEEV V K, — 100437/2025

Case under Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 Section 3(1)b,3(1)(za)E(zc),3(2va),4(2)and14. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 21st March 2026.

Case disposed

Crl.MP - CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION

CNR: KLKT010012142025

e-Filing Number

03-04-2025

Filing Number

100949/2025

Filing Date

04-Apr-2025

Registration No

100437/2025

Registration Date

04-Apr-2025

Court

Principal District & Sessions Court / Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kottayam

Judge

1-Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kottayam

Decision Date

21-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECTED

Last updated 23-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

707

Police Station

Mundakayam Police Station

Year

2024

Acts & Sections

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 Section 3(1)b,3(1)(za)E(zc),3(2va),4(2)and14

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Jayan P P

    Adv. AVINASH K KRISHNAN

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Joshy Mathew Advocate - Jomi C J, Jomi C J, Jomi C JRAJEEV V K,

  2. 2.Shahul Hameed

    Adv. Jomi C J,Jomi C J RAJEEV V K

  3. 3.M Anil Kumar

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 21-Mar-2026

    Order

    Summary: Case 100437/2025 - Jayan P P v. Joshy Mathew Advocate & Others Decision: The Sessions Court rejected the complainant's protest complaint and accepted the police's refer report, dismissing all charges under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Key Reasoning: The court found that the Panchayat Secretaries acted in official capacity enforcing lawful committee decisions regarding unpaid rent and eviction proceedings. The public well and police aid post existed before the shop was allotted to the complainant and serve community interests. The court concluded no prima facie case of atrocity, economic boycott, or neglect of duty was made out, finding the allegations false and frivolous. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 21-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kottayam

  4. 19-Mar-2026

    Order/Judgement

    Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kottayam

  5. 09-Mar-2026

    Order/Judgement

    Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kottayam

  6. 19-Feb-2026

    For Further Hearing

    Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kottayam

  7. 07-Feb-2026

    For Hearing

    Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kottayam

  8. 17-Jan-2026

    For Hearing

    Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kottayam

  9. 06-Dec-2025

    For Hearing

    Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kottayam

  10. 01-Nov-2025

    For Hearing

    Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kottayam

  11. 04-Oct-2025

    For Hearing

    Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kottayam

  12. 24-Sep-2025

    For Hearing

    Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kottayam

  13. 09-Sep-2025

    For Reports

    Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kottayam

  14. 18-Aug-2025

    For Hearing

    Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kottayam

  15. 29-Jul-2025

    For Reports

    Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kottayam

  16. 05-Jul-2025

    Await Report

    Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kottayam

  17. 19-Jun-2025

    Call On

    Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kottayam

  18. 11-Jun-2025

    For Steps

    Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kottayam

  19. 24-May-2025

    For Steps

    Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kottayam

  20. 08-Apr-2025

    For Enquiry

    Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kottayam

  21. 05-Apr-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  22. 04-Apr-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 100437/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: Case 100437/2025 - Jayan P P v. Joshy Mathew Advocate & Others Decision: The Sessions Court rejected the complainant's protest complaint and accepted the police's refer report, dismissing all charges under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Key Reasoning: The court found that the Panchayat Secretaries acted in official capacity enforcing lawful committee decisions regarding unpaid rent and eviction proceedings. The public well and police aid post existed before the shop was allotted to the complainant and serve community interests. The court concluded no prima facie case of atrocity, economic boycott, or neglect of duty was made out, finding the allegations false and frivolous. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case