PRASANNAKUMAR vs SANOOP @SANU — 100816/2019
Case under Crl.mp/1/2026 Classification : Petition Section SANOOP @SANUPRASANNAKUMAR. Disposed: Uncontested--AQUITTED on 18th March 2026.
CC - CALENDAR CASE
CNR: KLTV500027462019
Filing Number
100816/2019
Filing Date
09-07-2019
Registration No
100816/2019
Registration Date
17-07-2019
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
258
Police Station
KATTAKADA POLICE STATION
Year
2019
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
PRASANNAKUMAR
Respondent(s)
SANOOP @SANU
AKHIL
NIVIN KUMAR
ANILKUMAR@ MANIKUTTAN
ANNESH
VISAKH@UNNI
Hearing History
Judge: 1-JFCM Kattakada
Disposed
For further hearing
No sitting notified
For further hearing
Appearance Of Parties
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 18-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 17-03-2026 | For further hearing |
| 16-03-2026 | No sitting notified |
| 12-03-2026 | For further hearing |
| 28-01-2026 | Appearance Of Parties |
Interim Orders
Court Decision Summary The Kattakada Judicial First Class Magistrate acquitted all six accused persons of charges under IPC sections 143, 147, 148, 447, 452, 323, 379, and 506(ii) r/w 149, finding them not guilty. The court determined that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt because the de facto complainant and material witnesses did not support the case and failed to provide incriminating evidence, with key witnesses either turning hostile or settling the dispute amicably. The accused persons were released immediately, and material objects will be confiscated after the appeal period. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Decision Summary The Kattakada Judicial First Class Magistrate acquitted all six accused persons of charges under IPC sections 143, 147, 148, 447, 452, 323, 379, and 506(ii) r/w 149, finding them not guilty. The court determined that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt because the de facto complainant and material witnesses did not support the case and failed to provide incriminating evidence, with key witnesses either turning hostile or settling the dispute amicably. The accused persons were released immediately, and material objects will be confiscated after the appeal period. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts