Inspector Of Police, Natham Ps vs Alagar — 92/2024
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 279,304(A). Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 23rd June 2026.
CC - Calendar Case
CNR: TNDG100017402024
e-Filing Number
29-08-2024
Filing Number
1700/2024
Filing Date
03-Sep-2024
Registration No
92/2024
Registration Date
27-Sep-2024
Court
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Natham
Judge
1-District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate
Decision Date
23-Jun-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
Last updated 28-Jun-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
603
Police Station
natham police station
Year
2023
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Inspector Of Police, Natham Ps (Police Station)
Adv. Sub Inspector of Police NathamPS
Respondent(s)
-
1.Alagar
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
23-Jun-2026
Disposed
District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate
-
16-Jun-2026
Judgement
District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate
-
09-Jun-2026
Arguments
District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate
-
04-Jun-2026
Copy of DepositionView PDF
Case Summary: 92/2024 Case: CC.No. 92/2024 | Court: District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Natham | Petitioner: Inspector of Police, Natham PS | Respondent: Alagar Summary: This is a witness deposition in a motor vehicle accident case where the investigating officer details the investigation into a fatal hit-and-run incident. The officer testified that he took over investigation of original charges under IPC Sections 279 and 337, later upgraded to Sections 279 and 304-A (causing death by negligence) after the victim died despite medical treatment. The investigation included vehicle examination, autopsy report, and interrogation leading to the accused's arrest on 17.06.2024 and filing of final chargesheet on 18.06.2024. During cross-examination, the officer acknowledged significant investigative gaps: failure to interrogate the accident victim initially present at the hospital, omission of crucial road details in the chargesheet, seven-day delay in vehicle examination, and contradictory statements regarding the accident's direction and circumstances, undermining the case's evidentiary strength. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
04-Jun-2026
Evidence
District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate
-
03-Jun-2026
Evidence
District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate
-
02-Jun-2026
Evidence
District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate
-
21-May-2026
Evidence
District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate
-
12-May-2026
Evidence
District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate
-
29-Apr-2026
Evidence
District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate
-
16-Apr-2026
Evidence
District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate
-
07-Apr-2026
Evidence
District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate
-
23-Mar-2026
Evidence
District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate
-
11-Mar-2026
Copy of DepositionView PDF
-
11-Mar-2026
Evidence
District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate
-
03-Mar-2026
Evidence
District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate
-
23-Feb-2026
Evidence
District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate
-
19-Feb-2026
Evidence
District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate
-
10-Feb-2026
Evidence
District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate
-
30-Jan-2026
Evidence
District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate
-
23-Jan-2026
Evidence
District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate
-
19-Jan-2026
Evidence
District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate
-
08-Jan-2026
Evidence
District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate
-
16-Dec-2025
Evidence
District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate
-
09-Dec-2025
Evidence
District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate
-
25-Nov-2025
Evidence
District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate
-
07-Nov-2025
Evidence
District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate
-
23-Oct-2025
Evidence
District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate
-
14-Oct-2025
Evidence
District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate
-
25-Sep-2025
Evidence
District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate
-
11-Sep-2025
Evidence
District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate
-
19-Aug-2025
Issue of Service
District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate
-
01-Aug-2025
Copy of DepositionView PDF
-
01-Aug-2025
Issue of Service
District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate
-
22-Jul-2025
Evidence
District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate
-
11-Jul-2025
Evidence
District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate
-
07-Jul-2025
Evidence
District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate
-
30-Jun-2025
Evidence
District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate
-
24-Jun-2025
Evidence
District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate
-
17-Jun-2025
Evidence
District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate
-
16-May-2025
Copy of DepositionView PDF
-
16-May-2025
Evidence
District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate
-
24-Apr-2025
Copy of DepositionView PDF
-
24-Apr-2025
Evidence
District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate
-
25-Mar-2025
Evidence
District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate
-
25-Feb-2025
Evidence
District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate
-
23-Jan-2025
Service Pending-Warrant
District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate
-
26-Dec-2024
Issue of Service
District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate
-
05-Dec-2024
Issue of Service
District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate
-
12-Nov-2024
Trial
District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate
-
15-Oct-2024
Questioning
District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate
-
27-Sep-2024
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
03-Sep-2024
Case filed
Registration No. 92/2024
Case Summary: 92/2024 Case: CC.No. 92/2024 | Court: District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Natham | Petitioner: Inspector of Police, Natham PS | Respondent: Alagar Summary: This is a witness deposition in a motor vehicle accident case where the investigating officer details the investigation into a fatal hit-and-run incident. The officer testified that he took over investigation of original charges under IPC Sections 279 and 337, later upgraded to Sections 279 and 304-A (causing death by negligence) after the victim died despite medical treatment. The investigation included vehicle examination, autopsy report, and interrogation leading to the accused's arrest on 17.06.2024 and filing of final chargesheet on 18.06.2024. During cross-examination, the officer acknowledged significant investigative gaps: failure to interrogate the accident victim initially present at the hospital, omission of crucial road details in the chargesheet, seven-day delay in vehicle examination, and contradictory statements regarding the accident's direction and circumstances, undermining the case's evidentiary strength. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts