Inspector of Police Achirupakkam Police Station vs VIMAL S/O SUNDARAM — 574/2025
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 294(b),323,324,506(2). Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 23rd March 2026.
CC - Calendar Case
CNR: TNCG150029402025
e-Filing Number
28-11-2025
Filing Number
2940/2025
Filing Date
04-12-2025
Registration No
574/2025
Registration Date
30-12-2025
Court
Judicial Magistrate Court, Maduranthakam
Judge
2-Judicial Magistrate No. II, Madurantakam
Decision Date
23rd March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
FIR Details
FIR Number
2
Police Station
ACHIRUPAKKAM PS
Year
2023
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Inspector of Police Achirupakkam Police Station
Adv. INSPECTOR OF POLICE ACHARAPAKKAM POLICESTATION
Respondent(s)
VIMAL S/O SUNDARAM
Hearing History
Judge: 2-Judicial Magistrate No. II, Madurantakam
Disposed
Arguments
Questioning
CMP Pending
Trial
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 23-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 16-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 12-03-2026 | Questioning |
| 05-03-2026 | CMP Pending |
| 17-02-2026 | Trial |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: CC 574/2025 Court Decision: The Judicial Magistrate acquitted both accused persons (Vimal and Karthimuthu) of all charges under IPC Sections 294(b), 323, 324, 506(2) and the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Hartal and Bandh Act, finding the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted significant inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony, lack of corroborating evidence regarding the alleged weapon, and found that continuing the trial after the parties had reached a compromise would constitute abuse of process of court. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case Summary: CC 574/2025 Court Decision: The Judicial Magistrate acquitted both accused persons (Vimal and Karthimuthu) of all charges under IPC Sections 294(b), 323, 324, 506(2) and the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Hartal and Bandh Act, finding the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted significant inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony, lack of corroborating evidence regarding the alleged weapon, and found that continuing the trial after the parties had reached a compromise would constitute abuse of process of court. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts