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
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
Petitioner(s)
All Women Police Station Tambaram
Respondent(s)
Rajesh
Gowri
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Pallavaram
Disposed
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 14-05-2026 | Disposed |
| 11-05-2026 | Evidence |
| 07-05-2026 | Evidence |
| 25-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 16-03-2026 | Evidence |
Final Orders / Judgements
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.
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
Explore other courts