State of West Bengal vs HARADHAN MONDAL AND 1 OTHER — 6314/2023

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 341,323,506,34. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 16th March 2026.

Case disposed

Gr Case

CNR: WBNP150079762023

Filing Number

6314/2023

Filing Date

02-Aug-2025

Registration No

6314/2023

Registration Date

02-Aug-2025

Court

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore, North 24 Pgs.

Judge

8-Acjm

Decision Date

16-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ACQUITTED

Last updated 11-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

369

Police Station

TITAGARH

Year

2023

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 341,323,506,34

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.State of West Bengal

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.HARADHAN MONDAL AND 1 OTHER

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 16-Mar-2026

    JudgementView PDF

    Summary: State of West Bengal v. Haradhan Mondal (Case 6314/2023) The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore acquitted Haradhan Mondal and Anjana Mondal of charges under IPC sections 341/323/506/34 (wrongful restraint, voluntarily causing hurt, and criminal intimidation). The sole prosecution witness—the de facto complainant—testified that he filed the case against his uncle and aunt but had no allegations against them as their dispute was settled, creating vast inconsistency between the written complaint and trial evidence. The court found the prosecution case lacked substance, contained no incriminating evidence, and failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, warranting acquittal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 16-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Acjm

  4. 02-Aug-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 6314/2023

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: State of West Bengal v. Haradhan Mondal (Case 6314/2023) The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore acquitted Haradhan Mondal and Anjana Mondal of charges under IPC sections 341/323/506/34 (wrongful restraint, voluntarily causing hurt, and criminal intimidation). The sole prosecution witness—the de facto complainant—testified that he filed the case against his uncle and aunt but had no allegations against them as their dispute was settled, creating vast inconsistency between the written complaint and trial evidence. The court found the prosecution case lacked substance, contained no incriminating evidence, and failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, warranting acquittal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case