State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector of Police ERAINEL P.S vs Ajay — 1123/2025
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 191(2),296(b),115(2),351(2). Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 25th March 2026.
STC - Small Cause Calendar case / Summary Trial Case
CNR: TNKK180039642025
e-Filing Number
08-12-2025
Filing Number
3905/2025
Filing Date
08-12-2025
Registration No
1123/2025
Registration Date
08-12-2025
Court
Judicial Magistrate Court, Eraniel
Judge
1-Judicial Magistrate
Decision Date
25th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
FIR Details
FIR Number
448
Police Station
ERAINEL P.S
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector of Police ERAINEL P.S
Adv. Public Prosecutor
Respondent(s)
Ajay
Sreejith
Ragul Sanjay
Sabarish
Murugesan
Ramji
Sriram
Akash
Ratheesh
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Judicial Magistrate
Disposed
Questioning
Framing of Charges
Service Pending-Summon
Service Pending-Summon
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 25-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 23-03-2026 | Questioning |
| 13-03-2026 | Framing of Charges |
| 11-03-2026 | Service Pending-Summon |
| 09-03-2026 | Service Pending-Summon |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Decision Summary The Judicial Magistrate Court in Ernakulam acquitted all nine accused persons of charges under Indian Penal Code sections 191(2), 296(b), and 351(2) due to insufficient evidence. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the allegations beyond reasonable doubt, as the key complainant (witness PW1) contradicted the government's case by testifying that he had settled the matter with the accused, and no corroborating evidence was presented to substantiate the charges of criminal intimidation and wrongful restraint. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Court Decision Summary The Judicial Magistrate Court in Ernakulam acquitted all nine accused persons of charges under Indian Penal Code sections 191(2), 296(b), and 351(2) due to insufficient evidence. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the allegations beyond reasonable doubt, as the key complainant (witness PW1) contradicted the government's case by testifying that he had settled the matter with the accused, and no corroborating evidence was presented to substantiate the charges of criminal intimidation and wrongful restraint. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts