Palladam PS vs Karthic and another — 197/2015
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 457,380. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 26th March 2026.
CC - Calendar Case
CNR: TNTI110002212015
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Date
28-09-2015
Registration No
197/2015
Registration Date
28-09-2015
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
825
Police Station
Palladam Police Station
Year
2014
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
Questioning
Part Heard
Part Heard
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 26-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 23-03-2026 | Judgement | |
| 09-03-2026 | Questioning | |
| 03-03-2026 | Part Heard | |
| 25-02-2026 | Part Heard |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary The Judicial Magistrate Court at Palladam acquitted two accused individuals, Karthick and Nagendhiran, of charges under IPC sections 457 (burglary) and 380 (theft) in a 2014 home burglary case. The court found that while the prosecution presented testimony from the complainant and investigating officer, key inconsistencies in witness statements—particularly contradictions regarding the amount of money stolen—and the absence of credible evidence directly linking the accused to the crime meant the charges were not proven beyond reasonable doubt. The court ruled that the recovery of stolen mobile phones alone was insufficient to establish guilt without corroborating witness testimony and ordered the accused's acquittal under CrPC section 248(1). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case Summary The Judicial Magistrate Court at Palladam acquitted two accused individuals, Karthick and Nagendhiran, of charges under IPC sections 457 (burglary) and 380 (theft) in a 2014 home burglary case. The court found that while the prosecution presented testimony from the complainant and investigating officer, key inconsistencies in witness statements—particularly contradictions regarding the amount of money stolen—and the absence of credible evidence directly linking the accused to the crime meant the charges were not proven beyond reasonable doubt. The court ruled that the recovery of stolen mobile phones alone was insufficient to establish guilt without corroborating witness testimony and ordered the accused's acquittal under CrPC section 248(1). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts