All Women Police Station Tambaram vs Rajesh — 411/2025

Case under Code of Criminal Procedure Section 498. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 14th May 2026.

CC - Calendar Case

CNR: TNCG100037322025

Case disposed

Filing Number

3404/2025

Filing Date

12-12-2025

Registration No

411/2025

Registration Date

12-12-2025

Court

District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Pallavaram

Judge

1-District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Pallavaram

Decision Date

14th May 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Acquitted

FIR Details

Police Station

TAMBARAM

Year

0

Acts & Sections

CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 Section 498

Petitioner(s)

All Women Police Station Tambaram

Respondent(s)

Rajesh

Gowri

Hearing History

Judge: 1-District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Pallavaram

14-05-2026

Disposed

11-05-2026

Evidence

07-05-2026

Evidence

25-03-2026

Evidence

16-03-2026

Evidence

Final Orders / Judgements

14-05-2026
Copy of Judgment

Case 411/2025: All Women Police Station Tambaram v. Rajesh and Gowri Court Decision: The Pallavaram District Court acquitted both defendants Rajesh and Gowri of charges under IPC Section 498(A) (dowry harassment), finding the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The primary complainant's testimony contained significant contradictions, and corroborating witnesses were not direct eyewitnesses. Key Reasoning: The court determined that the complainant's initial testimony conflicted with her later settlement with the accused, undermining case credibility. Supporting witnesses testified only hearsay evidence rather than firsthand accounts, and the prosecution's circumstantial evidence proved insufficient to meet the criminal standard of proof. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case 411/2025: All Women Police Station Tambaram v. Rajesh and Gowri Court Decision: The Pallavaram District Court acquitted both defendants Rajesh and Gowri of charges under IPC Section 498(A) (dowry harassment), finding the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The primary complainant's testimony contained significant contradictions, and corroborating witnesses were not direct eyewitnesses. Key Reasoning: The court determined that the complainant's initial testimony conflicted with her later settlement with the accused, undermining case credibility. Supporting witnesses testified only hearsay evidence rather than firsthand accounts, and the prosecution's circumstantial evidence proved insufficient to meet the criminal standard of proof. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Pallavaram All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case