SIP vs NARAYANANKUTTI — 200584/2019
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 143,147,447,427,294,34. Disposed: Uncontested--AQUITTED on 24th March 2026.
CC - CALENDAR CASE
CNR: KLTR240019022019
Filing Number
200584/2019
Filing Date
22-Jun-2019
Registration No
200584/2019
Registration Date
22-Jun-2019
Court
Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Wadakkanchery
Judge
1-Judicial First Class Magistrate
Decision Date
24-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--AQUITTED
Last updated 15-Jun-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
172
Police Station
PAZHAYANNUR
Year
19
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.SIP (Sub-Inspector of Police)
Respondent(s)
-
1.NARAYANANKUTTI
-
2.SUBRAMANIAN
-
3.GIBU
-
4.SANTHOSH
-
5.RAJKUMARAN
-
6.RANJITH
-
7.MANIKANDAN
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
24-Mar-2026
Judgement
Case Summary: CC 584/2019 The court acquitted four of six accused persons (A1 Narayanankutty, A3 Jibu, A4 Santhosh, and A6 Ranjith) of charges under IPC sections 143, 147, 447, 427, and 294(b) r/w 149, finding them not guilty. The prosecution alleged the accused formed an unlawful assembly, criminally trespassed into a property, destroyed an iron fence and concrete stones causing Rs. 18,000 loss, and uttered obscene words. However, the sole eyewitness (PW1) turned hostile and failed to support the prosecution case, leaving no linking evidence connecting the accused to the alleged incident. Consequently, the burden of proof was not satisfied, and all five points were decided against the prosecution. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
24-Mar-2026
Disposed
Judicial First Class Magistrate
-
19-Mar-2026
Order/ Judgement
Judicial First Class Magistrate
-
16-Mar-2026
For Hearing
Judicial First Class Magistrate
-
05-Feb-2026
repeat NBW
Judicial First Class Magistrate
-
08-Jan-2026
NBW to cws
Judicial First Class Magistrate
-
12-Dec-2025
Await warrent
Judicial First Class Magistrate
-
14-Nov-2025
NBW to cws
Judicial First Class Magistrate
-
16-Oct-2025
NBW to cws
Judicial First Class Magistrate
-
03-Sep-2025
No sitting notified
Judicial First Class Magistrate
-
19-Aug-2025
Issue bailable warrant to witness
Judicial First Class Magistrate
-
30-Jul-2025
NBW to cws
Judicial First Class Magistrate
-
22-Apr-2025
To summon witness
Judicial First Class Magistrate
-
18-Dec-2024
Call on
Judicial First Class Magistrate
-
27-Nov-2024
To summon witness
Judicial First Class Magistrate
-
16-Oct-2024
To summon witness
Judicial First Class Magistrate
-
05-Aug-2024
NBW to cws
Judicial First Class Magistrate
-
03-Jun-2024
Call on
Judicial First Class Magistrate
-
05-Mar-2024
NBW to cws
Judicial First Class Magistrate
-
20-Dec-2023
NBW to cws
Judicial First Class Magistrate
-
29-Nov-2023
For settlement
Judicial First Class Magistrate
-
21-Nov-2023
Referred to Mediator
Judicial First Class Magistrate
-
21-Sep-2023
No sitting notified
Judicial First Class Magistrate
-
23-Jun-2023
To summon witness
Judicial First Class Magistrate
-
13-Dec-2022
To record plea of the accused
Judicial First Class Magistrate
-
20-Jul-2022
For recording statement of accused
Judicial First Class Magistrate
-
07-Mar-2022
For recording statement of accused
Judicial First Class Magistrate
-
05-Aug-2021
Issue summonsed to accused
Judicial First Class Magistrate
-
14-Jan-2021
Adjourned
Judicial First Class Magistrate
-
07-Sep-2020
Call on
Judicial First Class Magistrate
-
04-Feb-2020
repeat NBW
Judicial First Class Magistrate
-
07-Aug-2019
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
22-Jun-2019
Case filed
Registration No. 200584/2019
Case Summary: CC 584/2019 The court acquitted four of six accused persons (A1 Narayanankutty, A3 Jibu, A4 Santhosh, and A6 Ranjith) of charges under IPC sections 143, 147, 447, 427, and 294(b) r/w 149, finding them not guilty. The prosecution alleged the accused formed an unlawful assembly, criminally trespassed into a property, destroyed an iron fence and concrete stones causing Rs. 18,000 loss, and uttered obscene words. However, the sole eyewitness (PW1) turned hostile and failed to support the prosecution case, leaving no linking evidence connecting the accused to the alleged incident. Consequently, the burden of proof was not satisfied, and all five points were decided against the prosecution. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts