State of Kerala (Police) vs MODESH Advocate - MAYA — 201815/2021
Case under Ipc \ Section U/S 447,323,324,354, r/w 34. Disposed: Uncontested--AQUITTED U/S 248(1) CR.PC on 04th June 2026.
CC - CALENDAR CASE
CNR: KLTR240031862021
Filing Number
201815/2021
Filing Date
17-11-2021
Registration No
201815/2021
Registration Date
17-11-2021
Court
Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Wadakkanchery
Judge
1-Judicial First Class Magistrate
Decision Date
04th June 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--AQUITTED U/S 248(1) CR.PC
FIR Details
FIR Number
1031
Police Station
ERUMAPETTY
Year
2021
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Kerala (Police)
Respondent(s)
MODESH Advocate - MAYA
SATHYABHAMA
Adv. MAYA
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Judicial First Class Magistrate
Disposed
Order/ Judgement
Issue summonsed to accused
Issue Summons
Issue Summons
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 04-06-2026 | Disposed |
| 03-06-2026 | Order/ Judgement |
| 22-05-2026 | Issue summonsed to accused |
| 16-03-2026 | Issue Summons |
| 12-12-2025 | Issue Summons |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: State of Kerala v. Modesh & Sathyabhama (CC 1815/21) The court acquitted both accused of charges under IPC sections 447 (criminal trespass), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 324 (causing hurt with dangerous weapon), and 354 (outraging modesty) with common intention. The key witnesses—the de facto complainant and the alleged victim—turned hostile, testifying that while the incident occurred, the matter was settled between parties due to misunderstanding. Lacking credible evidence to support the prosecution case, the court found no incriminating circumstances and discharged the accused under section 248(1) CrPC. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: State of Kerala v. Modesh & Sathyabhama (CC 1815/21) The court acquitted both accused of charges under IPC sections 447 (criminal trespass), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 324 (causing hurt with dangerous weapon), and 354 (outraging modesty) with common intention. The key witnesses—the de facto complainant and the alleged victim—turned hostile, testifying that while the incident occurred, the matter was settled between parties due to misunderstanding. Lacking credible evidence to support the prosecution case, the court found no incriminating circumstances and discharged the accused under section 248(1) CrPC. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts