Inspector of Police Sulur PS vs Manojkumar — 474/2025
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 147,294(b). Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 29th May 2026.
CC - Calendar Case
CNR: TNCB180018622025
Filing Number
1856/2025
Filing Date
05-06-2025
Registration No
474/2025
Registration Date
05-06-2025
Court
Judicial Magistrate Court, Sulur
Judge
31-JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, SULUR
Decision Date
29th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
FIR Details
FIR Number
782
Police Station
Sulur Police Station
Year
2015
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Inspector of Police Sulur PS (Police Station)
Respondent(s)
Manojkumar
Dhilipkumar
Manojkumar
Arunkumar
Silambu Alais Silambarasan
Hearing History
Judge: 31-JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, SULUR
Restored
Evidence
Disposed
Trial
Trial
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 29-05-2026 | Restored |
| 29-05-2026 | Evidence |
| 29-05-2026 | Disposed |
| 27-05-2026 | Trial |
| 23-03-2026 | Trial |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: 474/2025 The Judicial Magistrate acquitted accused A2, A4, and A5 of charges under IPC sections 147 (rioting), 294(b) (obscene language), and 506(ii) (criminal intimidation) for an alleged November 2015 incident. The court found the prosecution failed to establish charges beyond reasonable doubt—the complainant (PW1) testified but was declared hostile, stated a compromise had been reached, and admitted lodging the complaint "merely out of suspicion." No independent witnesses were examined to corroborate the allegations, and prosecution evidence lacked sufficient credibility to sustain conviction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case Summary: 474/2025 The Judicial Magistrate acquitted accused A2, A4, and A5 of charges under IPC sections 147 (rioting), 294(b) (obscene language), and 506(ii) (criminal intimidation) for an alleged November 2015 incident. The court found the prosecution failed to establish charges beyond reasonable doubt—the complainant (PW1) testified but was declared hostile, stated a compromise had been reached, and admitted lodging the complaint "merely out of suspicion." No independent witnesses were examined to corroborate the allegations, and prosecution evidence lacked sufficient credibility to sustain 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