Kelambakkam Police Station vs PANDI — 2/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 118(1),296(b). Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 24th March 2026.
CC - Calendar Case
CNR: TNCG110047132025
e-Filing Number
30-12-2025
Filing Number
4573/2025
Filing Date
31-12-2025
Registration No
2/2026
Registration Date
02-01-2026
Court
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruporur
Judge
1-District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate
Decision Date
24th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
FIR Details
FIR Number
467
Police Station
KELAMBAKKAM
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Kelambakkam Police Station
Adv. INSPECTOR OF POLICE KELAMBAKKAM LAW AND ORDER
Respondent(s)
PANDI
SANTHOSH KUMAR
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate
Disposed
Judgement
Judgement
Questioning
Trial
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 24-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 23-03-2026 | Judgement |
| 17-03-2026 | Judgement |
| 16-03-2026 | Questioning |
| 12-03-2026 | Trial |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: Kelambakkam Police Station v. Pandi & Santhosh Kumar (2/2026) The court acquitted the two defendants of charges under IPC Sections 296(b) and 118(1) (wrongful restraint and criminal intimidation). The primary prosecution witness—the injured complainant—testified inconsistently in court, denying the alleged altercation and contradicting his own written complaint, rendering him unreliable. Since the court found the government's evidence insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and applying the principle that the benefit of doubt favors the accused, the defendants were discharged under Section 271(1) CrPC. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case Summary: Kelambakkam Police Station v. Pandi & Santhosh Kumar (2/2026) The court acquitted the two defendants of charges under IPC Sections 296(b) and 118(1) (wrongful restraint and criminal intimidation). The primary prosecution witness—the injured complainant—testified inconsistently in court, denying the alleged altercation and contradicting his own written complaint, rendering him unreliable. Since the court found the government's evidence insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and applying the principle that the benefit of doubt favors the accused, the defendants were discharged under Section 271(1) CrPC. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts