State Of Tamilnadu Rep by SI of Police,ERAINEL vs Karthick Enta Jothi(Absconding) Advocate - Adv. Y. Nalany Chellam — 78/2021

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 457,380,511. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 25th March 2026.

Case disposed

CC - Calendar Case

CNR: TNKK180011222021

Filing Number

1122/2021

Filing Date

17-Mar-2021

Registration No

78/2021

Registration Date

07-Apr-2021

Court

Judicial Magistrate Court, Eraniel

Judge

1-Judicial Magistrate

Decision Date

25-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Acquitted

Last updated 19-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

399

Police Station

ERAINEL P.S

Year

2019

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 457,380,511

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.State Of Tamilnadu Rep by SI of Police,ERAINEL

    Adv. APP JM ERANIEL

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Karthick Enta Jothi(Absconding) Advocate - Adv. Y. Nalany Chellam

  2. 2.Venkadesh

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 25-Mar-2026

    Copy of JudgmentView PDF

    The Judicial Magistrate of Eraniel acquitted both accused persons (Karthik and Venkatesh) of charges under IPC Sections 457 and 380/511 on March 25, 2026, finding that the prosecution failed to prove the burglary attempt beyond reasonable doubt. The court held that while a theft attempt incident was established, the evidence did not sufficiently establish the accused's involvement in the crime, particularly noting contradictions in confession statements and lack of corroborating witness testimony. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 25-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Judicial Magistrate

  4. 23-Mar-2026

    Questioning

    Judicial Magistrate

  5. 18-Mar-2026

    EvidenceView PDF

  6. 18-Mar-2026

    Questioning

    Judicial Magistrate

  7. 16-Mar-2026

    Part Heard

    Judicial Magistrate

  8. 13-Mar-2026

    Part Heard

    Judicial Magistrate

  9. 11-Mar-2026

    Part Heard

    Judicial Magistrate

  10. 09-Mar-2026

    Part Heard

    Judicial Magistrate

  11. 03-Mar-2026

    Part Heard

    Judicial Magistrate

  12. 02-Mar-2026

    Part Heard

    Judicial Magistrate

  13. 25-Feb-2026

    Part Heard

    Judicial Magistrate

  14. 18-Feb-2026

    Part Heard

    Judicial Magistrate

  15. 11-Feb-2026

    EvidenceView PDF

  16. 11-Feb-2026

    Part Heard

    Judicial Magistrate

  17. 02-Feb-2026

    Copies

    Judicial Magistrate

  18. 12-Dec-2025

    Vakalat / Memo of Appearance

    Judicial Magistrate

  19. 28-Nov-2025

    Admission

    Judicial Magistrate

  20. 26-Nov-2025

    Admission

    Judicial Magistrate

  21. 04-Jul-2025

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate

  22. 12-Sep-2024

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate

  23. 27-Dec-2023

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate

  24. 06-Jul-2023

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate

  25. 29-Mar-2023

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate

  26. 29-Dec-2022

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate

  27. 17-Oct-2022

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate

  28. 26-Jul-2022

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate

  29. 23-May-2022

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate

  30. 28-Feb-2022

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate

  31. 30-Nov-2021

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate

  32. 27-Aug-2021

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate

  33. 25-Jun-2021

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate

  34. 07-Apr-2021

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  35. 17-Mar-2021

    Case filed

    Registration No. 78/2021

casestatus.in Summary

The Judicial Magistrate of Eraniel acquitted both accused persons (Karthik and Venkatesh) of charges under IPC Sections 457 and 380/511 on March 25, 2026, finding that the prosecution failed to prove the burglary attempt beyond reasonable doubt. The court held that while a theft attempt incident was established, the evidence did not sufficiently establish the accused's involvement in the crime, particularly noting contradictions in confession statements and lack of corroborating witness testimony. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case