Palladam PS vs Karthic and another — 200065/2016
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 457,380. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 26th March 2026.
CC - Calendar Case
CNR: TNTI110000932016
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Date
01-03-2016
Registration No
200065/2016
Registration Date
01-03-2016
Court
Judicial Magistrate Court, Palladam
Judge
2-Judicial Magistrate Court, Palladam
Decision Date
26th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
FIR Details
FIR Number
1151
Police Station
Palladam Police Station
Year
2015
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Palladam PS (Police Station)
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
Karthic and another
Nagendran
Hearing History
Judge: 2-Judicial Magistrate Court, Palladam
Disposed
Judgement
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 26-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 23-03-2026 | Judgement | |
| 09-03-2026 | Arguments | |
| 03-03-2026 | Arguments | |
| 25-02-2026 | Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The Judicial Magistrate Court in Palladam acquitted two accused, Karthick and Nagendhiran, of charges under IPC sections 457/511 (attempt to commit lurking house-trespass or house-breaking) and 380/511 (attempt to commit theft), finding that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The court determined that while government witnesses testified to burglary attempts on two houses on September 28, 2015, the evidence was insufficient to establish the accused's guilt, particularly given contradictions between witness statements and the absence of corroborating forensic evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Summary The Judicial Magistrate Court in Palladam acquitted two accused, Karthick and Nagendhiran, of charges under IPC sections 457/511 (attempt to commit lurking house-trespass or house-breaking) and 380/511 (attempt to commit theft), finding that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The court determined that while government witnesses testified to burglary attempts on two houses on September 28, 2015, the evidence was insufficient to establish the accused's guilt, particularly given contradictions between witness statements and the absence of corroborating forensic evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts