Kalichamy vs Ramasamy and 1 another — 63/2012

Case under The Private Security Agencies ( Regulation ) Act 2005 Section 200. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 19th May 2026.

CC - Calendar Case

CNR: TNDG090005282012

Case disposed

Filing Date

11-09-2012

Registration No

63/2012

Registration Date

11-09-2012

Court

Judicial Magistrate Court, Palani

Judge

3-Judicial Magistrate

Decision Date

19th May 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Acquitted

Acts & Sections

THE PRIVATE SECURITY AGENCIES ( REGULATION ) ACT 2005 Section 200
MP/1/2025 Classification : 317 Cr.PC Section Ramasamy and 1 anotherKalichamy
MP/14/2026 Classification : 317 Cr.PC Section Ramasamy and 1 anotherKalichamy
MP/21/2026 Classification : 317 Cr.PC Section Ramasamy and 1 anotherKalichamy
MP/22/2026 Classification : 317 Cr.PC Section Ramasamy and 1 anotherKalichamy

Petitioner(s)

Kalichamy

Respondent(s)

Ramasamy and 1 another

Hearing History

Judge: 3-Judicial Magistrate

19-05-2026

Disposed

12-05-2026

Judgement

11-05-2026

Arguments

07-05-2026

Arguments

28-04-2026

Arguments

Final Orders / Judgements

19-05-2026
Copy of Judgment

Court Decision Summary The Judicial Magistrate of Palani acquitted both accused (Ramasamy and one other) under Section 248(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code from charges under IPC Sections 447 (criminal trespass), 341 (wrongful restraint), and 506(1) (criminal intimidation). The court found insufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused trespassed on the complainant's property, restrained him, or made threats, as the complainant failed to produce ownership documents and the witness testimony lacked corroborating material evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Interim Orders

14-11-2025
Deposition
casestatus.in Summary

Court Decision Summary The Judicial Magistrate of Palani acquitted both accused (Ramasamy and one other) under Section 248(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code from charges under IPC Sections 447 (criminal trespass), 341 (wrongful restraint), and 506(1) (criminal intimidation). The court found insufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused trespassed on the complainant's property, restrained him, or made threats, as the complainant failed to produce ownership documents and the witness testimony lacked corroborating material evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

Judicial Magistrate Court, Palani All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case