SATHYABHAMA vs MALLIKA — 100111/2020
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 143,147,149,323,324,447. Disposed: Uncontested--AQUITTED on 18th March 2026.
CC - CALENDAR CASE
CNR: KLTV500002712020
Filing Number
100111/2020
Filing Date
31-01-2020
Registration No
100111/2020
Registration Date
31-01-2020
Court
Judicial First class Magistrate Court 1 Kattakkada
Judge
1-JFCM Kattakada
Decision Date
18th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--AQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
149
Police Station
Maranallor
Year
2009
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
SATHYABHAMA
Respondent(s)
MALLIKA
Hearing History
Judge: 1-JFCM Kattakada
Disposed
For further hearing
For further hearing
Appearance Of Parties
To summon witness
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 18-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 17-03-2026 | For further hearing |
| 13-03-2026 | For further hearing |
| 18-02-2026 | Appearance Of Parties |
| 29-01-2026 | To summon witness |
Interim Orders
Summary of Case 100111/2020 The Kattakada Magistrate Court acquitted Mallika on March 18, 2026, of charges under IPC sections 143, 147, 323, 324, and 447 (read with 149)—relating to unlawful assembly, rioting, and criminal trespass with voluntary hurt. The prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt because the complainant and key witnesses did not support the case; the defacto complainant filed a compromise petition and testified the accused were not present at court, while other witnesses either denied knowledge or provided no incriminating evidence, leading the court to find insufficient material to sustain the allegations. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary of Case 100111/2020 The Kattakada Magistrate Court acquitted Mallika on March 18, 2026, of charges under IPC sections 143, 147, 323, 324, and 447 (read with 149)—relating to unlawful assembly, rioting, and criminal trespass with voluntary hurt. The prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt because the complainant and key witnesses did not support the case; the defacto complainant filed a compromise petition and testified the accused were not present at court, while other witnesses either denied knowledge or provided no incriminating evidence, leading the court to find insufficient material to sustain the allegations. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts