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

Case disposed

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

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 118(1),296(b)

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

24-03-2026

Disposed

23-03-2026

Judgement

17-03-2026

Judgement

16-03-2026

Questioning

12-03-2026

Trial

Final Orders / Judgements

24-03-2026
Copy of Judgment

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

10-03-2026
Oral Evidence
casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruporur All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case