S I of Police, Kunnamkulam vs Suresh Advocate - Prathapan CS — 103046/2017
Case under Ipc \ Section 143,147,148,341,323,324,149. Disposed: Uncontested--AQUITTED on 24th March 2026.
CC - CALENDAR CASE
CNR: KLTR250042422017
Filing Number
103046/2017
Filing Date
12-10-2017
Registration No
103046/2017
Registration Date
12-10-2017
Court
JFCM Court, Kunnamkulam
Judge
1-Judicial First Class Magistrate
Decision Date
24th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--AQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
902
Police Station
KUNNAMKULAM
Year
2017
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
S I of Police, Kunnamkulam
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
Suresh Advocate - Prathapan CS
Nikhil
Adv. Prathapan CS
Raju
Adv. Prathapan CS
Sukumaran
Adv. Prathapan CS
Prabhash
Adv. Prathapan CS
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Judicial First Class Magistrate
Disposed
Order/ Judgement
Repeat NBW
Return of warrant
Return of warrant
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 24-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 16-03-2026 | Order/ Judgement |
| 23-01-2026 | Repeat NBW |
| 11-11-2025 | Return of warrant |
| 07-05-2025 | Return of warrant |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: CC 3046/2017 The Kunnamkulam Magistrate Court acquitted all five accused persons (Suresh, Nikhil, Raju, Sukumaran, and Prabhash) of charges under IPC sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324 r/w 149 (unlawful assembly, rioting, and assault). The court found the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt because the two examined witnesses stated they had not witnessed the alleged April 4, 2017 incident and the matter had been settled between parties. The original complainant had deceased, and the Assistant Public Prosecutor abandoned remaining witnesses, leaving no incriminating evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: CC 3046/2017 The Kunnamkulam Magistrate Court acquitted all five accused persons (Suresh, Nikhil, Raju, Sukumaran, and Prabhash) of charges under IPC sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324 r/w 149 (unlawful assembly, rioting, and assault). The court found the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt because the two examined witnesses stated they had not witnessed the alleged April 4, 2017 incident and the matter had been settled between parties. The original complainant had deceased, and the Assistant Public Prosecutor abandoned remaining witnesses, leaving no incriminating evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts