Inspector of Police, Karumathampatti PS vs Velusamy Advocate - Mrs. M. Tamilselvi — 585/2025
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 296(b), 118(1),351(3). Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 12th March 2026.
CC - Calendar Case
CNR: TNCB180024242025
e-Filing Number
21-08-2025
Filing Number
2408/2025
Filing Date
22-08-2025
Registration No
585/2025
Registration Date
22-08-2025
Court
Judicial Magistrate Court, Sulur
Judge
31-JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, SULUR
Decision Date
12th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
FIR Details
FIR Number
503
Police Station
Karumathampatty Police Station
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Inspector of Police, Karumathampatti PS (Police Station)
Adv. Inspector of Police Karumathampatty Police Station
Respondent(s)
Velusamy Advocate - Mrs. M. Tamilselvi
Hearing History
Judge: 31-JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, SULUR
Disposed
Questioning
Trial
Trial
Trial
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 12-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 11-03-2026 | Questioning | |
| 10-03-2026 | Trial | |
| 09-03-2026 | Trial | |
| 08-01-2026 | Trial |
Final Orders / Judgements
The Judicial Magistrate Court in Sulur acquitted Mr. Velusamy of charges under sections 296(b), 118(1), and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Samhita (abusive language, criminal intimidation, and assault), finding insufficient evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted that the primary witness (complainant) turned hostile and failed to support the prosecution's case, while the investigating officer's testimony was merely procedural and unconnected to the crime itself. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
The Judicial Magistrate Court in Sulur acquitted Mr. Velusamy of charges under sections 296(b), 118(1), and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Samhita (abusive language, criminal intimidation, and assault), finding insufficient evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted that the primary witness (complainant) turned hostile and failed to support the prosecution's case, while the investigating officer's testimony was merely procedural and unconnected to the crime itself. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts