State Of Tamilnadu Rep by SI of Police,VELLICHANTHAI vs Anish Rajan Enta Anish Advocate - Adv A.Vimalan — 112/2022

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 380,457 IPC. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 17th March 2026.

Case disposed

CC - Calendar Case

CNR: TNKK180024992022

Filing Number

2499/2022

Filing Date

25-Apr-2022

Registration No

112/2022

Registration Date

25-Apr-2022

Court

Judicial Magistrate Court, Eraniel

Judge

1-Judicial Magistrate

Decision Date

17-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Acquitted

Last updated 19-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

143

Police Station

VELLICHANTHAI P.S

Year

2021

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 380,457 IPC

Petitioner(s)

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

    Adv. App, JM, Eraniel

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Anish Rajan Enta Anish Advocate - Adv A.Vimalan

  2. 2.Jothi @ Karthick

    Adv. Adv. Y. Nalany Chellam

  3. 3.Siva

    Adv. Adv. Y. Nalany Chellam

  4. 4.Karthick

    Adv. Adv. Y. Nalany Chellam

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 17-Mar-2026

    Copy of JudgmentView PDF

    Summary The Judicial Magistrate Court in Ernakulam acquitted all four accused persons (Anish Rajan, Jothi, Shiva, and Karthik) on March 17, 2026, of charges under Indian Penal Code Sections 457 (burglary) and 380 (theft) for allegedly stealing two white decorative lamps from a police station compound on August 12, 2021. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, citing insufficient corroborating evidence, contradictory witness statements, and lack of credible forensic or circumstantial evidence linking the accused to the alleged theft. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 17-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Judicial Magistrate

  4. 16-Mar-2026

    Judgement

    Judicial Magistrate

  5. 13-Mar-2026

    EvidenceView PDF

  6. 13-Mar-2026

    Questioning

    Judicial Magistrate

  7. 11-Mar-2026

    Part Heard

    Judicial Magistrate

  8. 09-Mar-2026

    Part Heard

    Judicial Magistrate

  9. 03-Mar-2026

    Part Heard

    Judicial Magistrate

  10. 02-Mar-2026

    Part Heard

    Judicial Magistrate

  11. 25-Feb-2026

    Part Heard

    Judicial Magistrate

  12. 18-Feb-2026

    Part Heard

    Judicial Magistrate

  13. 11-Feb-2026

    Part Heard

    Judicial Magistrate

  14. 02-Feb-2026

    EvidenceView PDF

  15. 02-Feb-2026

    Part Heard

    Judicial Magistrate

  16. 12-Dec-2025

    Trial

    Judicial Magistrate

  17. 18-Aug-2025

    Trial

    Judicial Magistrate

  18. 19-Jun-2025

    Trial

    Judicial Magistrate

  19. 05-Jun-2025

    Framing of Charges

    Judicial Magistrate

  20. 04-Apr-2025

    Framing of Charges

    Judicial Magistrate

  21. 13-Mar-2025

    Framing of Charges

    Judicial Magistrate

  22. 20-Dec-2024

    Framing of Charges

    Judicial Magistrate

  23. 29-Nov-2024

    Copies

    Judicial Magistrate

  24. 03-May-2024

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate

  25. 03-Nov-2023

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate

  26. 21-Jul-2023

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate

  27. 19-Apr-2023

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate

  28. 19-Jan-2023

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate

  29. 29-Nov-2022

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate

  30. 24-Aug-2022

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate

  31. 20-Jun-2022

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate

  32. 25-Apr-2022

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  33. 25-Apr-2022

    Case filed

    Registration No. 112/2022

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Judicial Magistrate Court in Ernakulam acquitted all four accused persons (Anish Rajan, Jothi, Shiva, and Karthik) on March 17, 2026, of charges under Indian Penal Code Sections 457 (burglary) and 380 (theft) for allegedly stealing two white decorative lamps from a police station compound on August 12, 2021. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, citing insufficient corroborating evidence, contradictory witness statements, and lack of credible forensic or circumstantial evidence linking the accused to the alleged theft. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case