Inspector of Police Karumathampatty PS vs NANDHAKUMAR Advocate - S. Sabarinathan — 134/2024
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 279, 304(A). Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 10th March 2026.
CC - Calendar Case
CNR: TNCB180049202024
e-Filing Number
05-11-2024
Filing Number
4899/2024
Filing Date
05-11-2024
Registration No
134/2024
Registration Date
05-11-2024
Court
Judicial Magistrate Court, Sulur
Judge
31-JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, SULUR
Decision Date
10th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
FIR Details
FIR Number
244
Police Station
Karumathampatty Police Station
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Inspector of Police Karumathampatty PS (Police Station)
Adv. Inspector of Police Karumathampatty Police Station
Respondent(s)
NANDHAKUMAR Advocate - S. Sabarinathan
Hearing History
Judge: 31-JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, SULUR
Disposed
Judgement
Judgement
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 10-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 07-03-2026 | Judgement | |
| 05-03-2026 | Judgement | |
| 25-02-2026 | Evidence | |
| 22-01-2026 | Evidence |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The Judicial Magistrate Court of Sulur acquitted accused Nandhakumar of charges under IPC Sections 279 (rash driving) and 304-A (death by negligence) in a fatal road accident case. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused drove recklessly; crucially, the eye witnesses could not identify the accused as the driver, their testimonies contained contradictions about the accident sequence, and the vehicle damage pattern in the mechanical inspection report was inconsistent with their accounts of how the collision occurred. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Summary The Judicial Magistrate Court of Sulur acquitted accused Nandhakumar of charges under IPC Sections 279 (rash driving) and 304-A (death by negligence) in a fatal road accident case. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused drove recklessly; crucially, the eye witnesses could not identify the accused as the driver, their testimonies contained contradictions about the accident sequence, and the vehicle damage pattern in the mechanical inspection report was inconsistent with their accounts of how the collision occurred. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts