THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE NATHAM PS vs ANDICHAMY — 27/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 296(b),351(2). Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 28th April 2026.
CC - Calendar Case
CNR: TNDG100024902025
e-Filing Number
15-11-2025
Filing Number
2423/2025
Filing Date
20-11-2025
Registration No
27/2026
Registration Date
30-01-2026
Court
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Natham
Judge
1-District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate
Decision Date
28th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
FIR Details
FIR Number
300
Police Station
natham police station
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE NATHAM PS (Police Station)
Adv. Sub Inspector of Police NathamPS
Respondent(s)
ANDICHAMY
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate
Disposed
Judgement
Questioning
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 28-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 22-04-2026 | Judgement |
| 18-04-2026 | Questioning |
| 15-04-2026 | Evidence |
| 09-04-2026 | Evidence |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Judgment Summary The court acquitted all seven accused of charges under BNS Sections 296(b), 351(2), and the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Atrocities Act Section 4, finding the prosecution failed to prove the allegations beyond reasonable doubt. The complainant alleged the accused harassed and threatened him regarding unpaid money from a defunct PACL company investment, but the court found critical evidentiary gaps—including the complainant's death by suicide, deceased key witness, and contradictory witness testimonies—rendering the case unproven. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Court Judgment Summary The court acquitted all seven accused of charges under BNS Sections 296(b), 351(2), and the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Atrocities Act Section 4, finding the prosecution failed to prove the allegations beyond reasonable doubt. The complainant alleged the accused harassed and threatened him regarding unpaid money from a defunct PACL company investment, but the court found critical evidentiary gaps—including the complainant's death by suicide, deceased key witness, and contradictory witness testimonies—rendering the case unproven. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts