State of West Bengal vs Kanti kuila and 3 ors Advocate - Tapan Chowdhury — 1242/2020
Case under 7.indian Penal Code Section 447,323,504,427,34. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 20th May 2026.
Gr Case
CNR: WBWM070006342020
Filing Number
1242/2020
Filing Date
17-03-2020
Registration No
1242/2020
Registration Date
17-03-2020
Court
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhargram
Judge
4-CJM
Decision Date
20th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
74
Police Station
JHARGRAM
Year
2020
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of West Bengal
Adv. A pp
Respondent(s)
Kanti kuila and 3 ors Advocate - Tapan Chowdhury
Hearing History
Judge: 4-CJM
Disposed
Judgement
Judgement
Argument / Further Argument
Argument / Further Argument
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 20-05-2026 | Disposed |
| 18-05-2026 | Judgement |
| 17-04-2026 | Judgement |
| 30-03-2026 | Argument / Further Argument |
| 13-03-2026 | Argument / Further Argument |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: The Chief Judicial Magistrate of Jhargram acquitted all four accused persons (Kanti Kuila, Santupada Kuila, Bholanath Kuila, and Sourav Kuila) of charges under IPC sections 447/323/504/427/34 (trespass, criminal intimidation, mischief, and criminal assault) on May 20, 2026. The prosecution failed to produce sufficient credible evidence—the complainant provided no documentary proof of property damage or medical treatment, key witnesses had no knowledge of the incident, and the alleged stolen money was never recovered. The court found the prosecution's case lacked substance and corroboration, holding there was "no iota of evidence" to support the charges. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: The Chief Judicial Magistrate of Jhargram acquitted all four accused persons (Kanti Kuila, Santupada Kuila, Bholanath Kuila, and Sourav Kuila) of charges under IPC sections 447/323/504/427/34 (trespass, criminal intimidation, mischief, and criminal assault) on May 20, 2026. The prosecution failed to produce sufficient credible evidence—the complainant provided no documentary proof of property damage or medical treatment, key witnesses had no knowledge of the incident, and the alleged stolen money was never recovered. The court found the prosecution's case lacked substance and corroboration, holding there was "no iota of evidence" to support the charges. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts