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.

CC - Calendar Case

CNR: TNKK180011222021

Case disposed

Filing Number

1122/2021

Filing Date

17-03-2021

Registration No

78/2021

Registration Date

07-04-2021

Court

Judicial Magistrate Court, Eraniel

Judge

1-Judicial Magistrate

Decision Date

25th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Acquitted

FIR Details

FIR Number

399

Police Station

ERAINEL P.S

Year

2019

Acts & Sections

INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 Section 457,380,511
MP/2/2025 Classification : Advance petition Section State Of Tamilnadu Rep by SI of Police,ERAINELVenkadesh

Petitioner(s)

State Of Tamilnadu Rep by SI of Police,ERAINEL

Adv. APP JM ERANIEL

Respondent(s)

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

Venkadesh

Hearing History

Judge: 1-Judicial Magistrate

25-03-2026

Disposed

23-03-2026

Questioning

18-03-2026

Questioning

16-03-2026

Part Heard

13-03-2026

Part Heard

Final Orders / Judgements

25-03-2026
Copy of Judgment

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.

Interim Orders

11-02-2026
Evidence
18-03-2026
Evidence
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.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

Judicial Magistrate Court, Eraniel All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case