Chengalpattu Taluk Police Station vs KANAGARAJ — 458/2025
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 294(b),323. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 30th March 2026.
STC - Small Cause Calendar case / Summary Trial Case
CNR: TNCG060023212025
e-Filing Number
01-06-2025
Filing Number
2294/2025
Filing Date
03-06-2025
Registration No
458/2025
Registration Date
03-06-2025
Court
Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Chengalpet
Judge
9-Judicial Magistrate-II, Chengalpattu
Decision Date
30th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
FIR Details
FIR Number
369
Police Station
CHENGALPATTU TALUK
Year
2023
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Chengalpattu Taluk Police Station
Adv. Inspector Of Police Chengalpattu Taluk Police Station
Respondent(s)
KANAGARAJ
Hearing History
Judge: 9-Judicial Magistrate-II, Chengalpattu
Disposed
Questioning
Questioning
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 30-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 26-03-2026 | Questioning |
| 25-03-2026 | Questioning |
| 18-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 16-03-2026 | Evidence |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: STC 458/2025 Court Decision: The Judicial Magistrate acquitted all four accused (Kanagaraj, Naresh, Ajithkumar, and Santhosh) under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. on March 30, 2026, finding them not guilty of offences under IPC Sections 294(b) and 323. Key Reasoning: The prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The primary witness (Robinson, the complainant) did not testify regarding the alleged date of occurrence, obscene words, or the attack, rendering his evidence unreliable. The investigating officer's testimony alone was insufficient without corroborating witness evidence. The court granted the benefit of doubt to the accused due to inadequate evidence incriminating them for the alleged public indecency and simple hurt charges. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: STC 458/2025 Court Decision: The Judicial Magistrate acquitted all four accused (Kanagaraj, Naresh, Ajithkumar, and Santhosh) under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. on March 30, 2026, finding them not guilty of offences under IPC Sections 294(b) and 323. Key Reasoning: The prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The primary witness (Robinson, the complainant) did not testify regarding the alleged date of occurrence, obscene words, or the attack, rendering his evidence unreliable. The investigating officer's testimony alone was insufficient without corroborating witness evidence. The court granted the benefit of doubt to the accused due to inadequate evidence incriminating them for the alleged public indecency and simple hurt 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