Madukkur PS vs Ibraheem Lodi @ Mohamed Ibraheem Advocate - N. Nithiyanantham., B.A., B.L., — 400391/2017
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 147,341,294(b),336,153(A),506(i). Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 16th March 2026.
CC - Calendar Case
CNR: TNTJ110019452017
Filing Number
400391/2017
Filing Date
13-12-2017
Registration No
400391/2017
Registration Date
13-12-2017
Court
Judicial Magistrate Court, Pattukottai
Judge
4-Judicial Magistrate
Decision Date
16th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
FIR Details
FIR Number
249
Police Station
Madukkur Police Station
Year
2010
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Madukkur PS (Police Station)
Respondent(s)
Ibraheem Lodi @ Mohamed Ibraheem Advocate - N. Nithiyanantham., B.A., B.L.,
Awrangasheep
Raja Mohamed
Shyed(Absconding)
Liyal Ahamed(Absconding)
Parakkavetti Shagul @ shagul Ameethu
Haja Moideen
Sulthan @ Mohamed sulthan
Abdull Hakeem
Jabarullah
Hearing History
Judge: 4-Judicial Magistrate
Disposed
Questioning
Questioning
Questioning
Questioning
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 16-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 12-03-2026 | Questioning |
| 11-03-2026 | Questioning |
| 23-02-2026 | Questioning |
| 12-02-2026 | Questioning |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Decision Summary Case: CC-391/2017 (Madurai Judicial Magistrate Court, Tamil Nadu) Decision: The court acquitted all eight accused persons of charges under IPC sections 147, 294(b), 336, 153(A), and 506(1), finding that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The judge noted that the key witness (PW1) gave contradictory testimony—initially denying knowledge of the incident during police investigation but later testifying for the accused—which undermined the credibility of the prosecution's case and rendered the evidence insufficient to sustain a conviction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Court Decision Summary Case: CC-391/2017 (Madurai Judicial Magistrate Court, Tamil Nadu) Decision: The court acquitted all eight accused persons of charges under IPC sections 147, 294(b), 336, 153(A), and 506(1), finding that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The judge noted that the key witness (PW1) gave contradictory testimony—initially denying knowledge of the incident during police investigation but later testifying for the accused—which undermined the credibility of the prosecution's case and rendered the evidence insufficient to sustain a conviction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts