State Government vs Delli babu Advocate - C. Sudhakar, S.T.Vashanth manivel, V.Srinivasna. — 229/2015
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 294(b),324,506(ii). Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 30th April 2026.
CC - Calendar Case
CNR: TNCG120005352015
Filing Number
100229/2015
Filing Date
03-12-2015
Registration No
229/2015
Registration Date
03-12-2015
Court
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Thirukalukundram
Judge
1-District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Thirukazhukundram
Decision Date
30th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
FIR Details
FIR Number
363
Police Station
Adambakkam PS
Year
2015
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State Government
Adv. A.P.P.1
Respondent(s)
Delli babu Advocate - C. Sudhakar, S.T.Vashanth manivel, V.Srinivasna.
Suman
Silambu
Selvakumar
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Thirukazhukundram
Disposed
Judgement
Service Pending-Non Bailable Warrant
Questioning
Questioning
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 30-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 27-04-2026 | Judgement |
| 21-04-2026 | Service Pending-Non Bailable Warrant |
| 15-04-2026 | Questioning |
| 26-03-2026 | Questioning |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: CC No. 229/2015 The court acquitted four accused (Delhi Babu, Suman, Silambu, and Selvakumar) of charges under IPC Sections 294(b), 324, and 506(ii) for allegedly attacking and threatening three victims on September 28, 2015. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, as the key witnesses—including the complainant and injured parties—became hostile witnesses and contradicted the case narrative, and the court determined that relying solely on the investigating officer's documentary evidence was insufficient to establish guilt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case Summary: CC No. 229/2015 The court acquitted four accused (Delhi Babu, Suman, Silambu, and Selvakumar) of charges under IPC Sections 294(b), 324, and 506(ii) for allegedly attacking and threatening three victims on September 28, 2015. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, as the key witnesses—including the complainant and injured parties—became hostile witnesses and contradicted the case narrative, and the court determined that relying solely on the investigating officer's documentary evidence was insufficient to establish guilt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts