S.I vs Abdul Jaleel — 200397/2020

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 341,323,324,34. Disposed: Uncontested--AQUITTED U/S 248(1) CR.PC on 16th March 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CALENDAR CASE

CNR: KLTR200015582020

Filing Number

200397/2020

Filing Date

29-Apr-2020

Registration No

200397/2020

Registration Date

15-May-2020

Court

Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kodungallur

Judge

1-Magistrate Kodungallur

Decision Date

16-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--AQUITTED U/S 248(1) CR.PC

Last updated 15-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 341,323,324,34

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.S.I

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Abdul Jaleel

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 16-Mar-2026

    JudgementView PDF

    Case Summary: CC No. 397/2020 Court Decision: Abdul Jaleel was acquitted of all charges under IPC sections 341, 323, 324, 294(b), and 506(1). The court found no credible evidence to prove the allegations of wrongful restraint, causing hurt with a Bluetooth speaker, criminal intimidation, or obscene language. Key Reasoning: The sole prosecution witness (the first informant/wife) retracted her statement, testifying she had filed the complaint due to marital misunderstanding and had since reconciled with the accused. With no incriminating evidence and the complainant unwilling to proceed, the prosecution abandoned examination of remaining witnesses. The court found absolutely no material connecting the accused to the alleged incident. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 16-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Magistrate Kodungallur

  4. 02-Mar-2026

    Defence Evidence

    Magistrate Kodungallur

  5. 27-Feb-2026

    Further evidence

    Magistrate Kodungallur

  6. 13-Feb-2026

    No sitting notified

    Magistrate Kodungallur

  7. 07-Jan-2026

    To summon witness

    Magistrate Kodungallur

  8. 20-Nov-2025

    Report on mediation

    Magistrate Kodungallur

  9. 08-Aug-2025

    No sitting notified

    Magistrate Kodungallur

  10. 26-Jun-2025

    Referred to Mediator

    Magistrate Kodungallur

  11. 07-May-2025

    Referred to Mediator

    Magistrate Kodungallur

  12. 17-Mar-2025

    NBW to cws

    Magistrate Kodungallur

  13. 03-Feb-2025

    Bound over

    Magistrate Kodungallur

  14. 18-Dec-2024

    To summon witness

    Magistrate Kodungallur

  15. 01-Nov-2024

    To summon witness

    Magistrate Kodungallur

  16. 16-Aug-2024

    To summon witness

    Magistrate Kodungallur

  17. 28-Jun-2024

    To summon witness

    Magistrate Kodungallur

  18. 11-Apr-2024

    To summon witness

    Magistrate Kodungallur

  19. 25-Jan-2024

    For framing charge

    Magistrate Kodungallur

  20. 08-Nov-2023

    For framing charge

    Magistrate Kodungallur

  21. 01-Sep-2023

    Hearing on Charge

    Magistrate Kodungallur

  22. 30-Jun-2023

    Hearing on Charge

    Magistrate Kodungallur

  23. 19-Apr-2023

    Hearing on Charge

    Magistrate Kodungallur

  24. 21-Feb-2023

    For appearance of the accused

    Magistrate Kodungallur

  25. 16-Dec-2022

    For appearance of the accused

    Magistrate Kodungallur

  26. 21-Oct-2022

    No sitting notified

    Magistrate Kodungallur

  27. 11-Jul-2022

    No sitting notified

    Magistrate Kodungallur

  28. 18-Dec-2021

    Summons in Ca

    Magistrate Kodungallur

  29. 20-Sep-2021

    No sitting notified

    Magistrate Kodungallur

  30. 11-May-2021

    No sitting notified

    Magistrate Kodungallur

  31. 16-Jan-2021

    Call on

    Magistrate Kodungallur

  32. 14-Oct-2020

    Call on

    Magistrate Kodungallur

  33. 22-Jul-2020

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  34. 29-Apr-2020

    Case filed

    Registration No. 200397/2020

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CC No. 397/2020 Court Decision: Abdul Jaleel was acquitted of all charges under IPC sections 341, 323, 324, 294(b), and 506(1). The court found no credible evidence to prove the allegations of wrongful restraint, causing hurt with a Bluetooth speaker, criminal intimidation, or obscene language. Key Reasoning: The sole prosecution witness (the first informant/wife) retracted her statement, testifying she had filed the complaint due to marital misunderstanding and had since reconciled with the accused. With no incriminating evidence and the complainant unwilling to proceed, the prosecution abandoned examination of remaining witnesses. The court found absolutely no material connecting the accused to the alleged incident. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case