Town North Police Station, Dindigul vs Mathavan S/O Mariyappan — 367/2021

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 387,506(2). Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 23rd March 2026.

CC - Calendar Case

CNR: TNDG030073552021

Case disposed

Filing Number

7073/2021

Filing Date

13-05-2021

Registration No

367/2021

Registration Date

13-05-2021

Court

Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Dindugul

Judge

9-Judicial Magistrate No II

Decision Date

23rd March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Acquitted

FIR Details

FIR Number

636

Police Station

Dindigul Town North P.S

Year

2019

Acts & Sections

INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 Section 387,506(2)
MP/1/2025 Classification : 317 Cr.PC Section Mathavan S/O MariyappanTown North Police Station, Dindigul
MP/2/2025 Classification : 317 Cr.PC Section Mathavan S/O MariyappanTown North Police Station, Dindigul

Petitioner(s)

Town North Police Station, Dindigul

Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

Mathavan S/O Mariyappan

Hearing History

Judge: 9-Judicial Magistrate No II

23-03-2026

Disposed

13-03-2026

Judgement

12-03-2026

Questioning

09-03-2026

Trial

19-01-2026

Trial

Final Orders / Judgements

23-03-2026
Copy of Judgment

Summary The Dindigul District Court acquitted accused Mathavan (age 24) of charges under IPC sections 387 (extortion) and 506(ii) (criminal intimidation), finding that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted critical inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony compared to the formal complaint, absence of corroborating eyewitnesses, and failure to recover the alleged weapon, resulting in acquittal and discharge under CrPC section 248(1). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Interim Orders

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Dindigul District Court acquitted accused Mathavan (age 24) of charges under IPC sections 387 (extortion) and 506(ii) (criminal intimidation), finding that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted critical inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony compared to the formal complaint, absence of corroborating eyewitnesses, and failure to recover the alleged weapon, resulting in acquittal and discharge under CrPC section 248(1). 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

Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Dindugul All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case