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
Filing Number
7073/2021
Filing Date
13-May-2021
Registration No
367/2021
Registration Date
13-May-2021
Court
Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Dindugul
Judge
9-Judicial Magistrate No II
Decision Date
23-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
Last updated 23-May-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
636
Police Station
Dindigul Town North P.S
Year
2019
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Town North Police Station, Dindigul
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
-
1.Mathavan S/O Mariyappan
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
23-Mar-2026
Copy of JudgmentView PDF
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.
-
23-Mar-2026
Disposed
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
13-Mar-2026
Judgement
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
12-Mar-2026
Questioning
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
09-Mar-2026
Copy of DepositionView PDF
-
09-Mar-2026
Trial
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
19-Jan-2026
Trial
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
15-Dec-2025
Trial
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
17-Nov-2025
Trial
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
29-Sep-2025
Trial
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
14-Jul-2025
Trial
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
05-May-2025
Trial
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
21-Apr-2025
Trial
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
07-Apr-2025
Trial
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
21-Feb-2025
Trial
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
03-Feb-2025
Trial
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
27-Jan-2025
Trial
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
09-Dec-2024
Trial
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
11-Nov-2024
Trial
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
02-Sep-2024
Trial
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
29-Jul-2024
Trial
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
22-Jul-2024
Trial
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
03-Jul-2024
Trial
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
03-Jun-2024
Service Pending-Non Bailable Warrant
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
29-Apr-2024
Service Pending-Non Bailable Warrant
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
04-Mar-2024
Trial
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
12-Feb-2024
Trial
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
06-Feb-2024
Questioning
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
29-Jan-2024
Questioning
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
22-Dec-2023
Questioning
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
13-Dec-2023
Questioning
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
01-Dec-2023
Service Pending-Summon
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
27-Nov-2023
Service Pending-Summon
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
09-Oct-2023
Service Pending-Summon
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
28-Aug-2023
Service Pending-Summon
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
10-Jul-2023
Service Pending-Summon
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
18-May-2023
Service Pending-Summon
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
09-Mar-2023
Service Pending-Summon
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
27-Feb-2023
Service Pending-Summon
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
09-Jan-2023
Service Pending-Summon
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
10-Oct-2022
Service Pending-Summon
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
25-Jul-2022
Service Pending-Summon
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
25-Apr-2022
Service Pending-Summon
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
10-Mar-2022
Service Pending
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
22-Jan-2022
Service Pending
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
23-Oct-2021
Service Pending
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
27-Jul-2021
Service Pending
Judicial Magistrate No II
-
22-Jun-2021
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
13-May-2021
Case filed
Registration No. 367/2021
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.
Explore other courts