State Of Tamilnadu Rep by SI of Police,MANAVALAKURICHY vs Anish Rajan @ Anish Advocate - Adv. Y. Nalany Chellam — 203/2022
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 380,454,457. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 16th March 2026.
CC - Calendar Case
CNR: TNKK180038262022
Filing Number
3826/2022
Filing Date
09-06-2022
Registration No
203/2022
Registration Date
09-06-2022
Court
Judicial Magistrate Court, Eraniel
Judge
1-Judicial Magistrate
Decision Date
16th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
FIR Details
FIR Number
119
Police Station
MANAVALAKURICHY P.S
Year
2021
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State Of Tamilnadu Rep by SI of Police,MANAVALAKURICHY
Adv. Public Prosecutor
Respondent(s)
Anish Rajan @ Anish Advocate - Adv. Y. Nalany Chellam
Jothi(Karthick)
Adv. Adv. Y. Nalany Chellam
Siva
Adv. Adv. Y. Nalany Chellam
Karthick @ Chinna Karthick
Adv. Adv. Y. Nalany Chellam
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Judicial Magistrate
Disposed
Questioning
Part Heard
Part Heard
Part Heard
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 16-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 13-03-2026 | Questioning |
| 11-03-2026 | Part Heard |
| 09-03-2026 | Part Heard |
| 03-03-2026 | Part Heard |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Judgment Summary The Judicial Magistrate of Eraniel acquitted all four accused persons of charges under Indian Penal Code sections 457 and 380 (theft-related offences) on March 16, 2026, finding that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The court held that the confessional statement given by one accused was contradicted by other witness testimonies and lacked sufficient corroborating evidence to establish the accused's involvement in the alleged theft of gold ornaments from a temple. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Judgment Summary The Judicial Magistrate of Eraniel acquitted all four accused persons of charges under Indian Penal Code sections 457 and 380 (theft-related offences) on March 16, 2026, finding that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The court held that the confessional statement given by one accused was contradicted by other witness testimonies and lacked sufficient corroborating evidence to establish the accused's involvement in the alleged theft of gold ornaments from a temple. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts