Chinnalapatty PS vs Parthasarathy and 3 others — 516/2023
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 294(b),506(1). Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 05th May 2026.
CC - Calendar Case
CNR: TNDG180046882022
Filing Number
4578/2022
Filing Date
16-11-2022
Registration No
516/2023
Registration Date
15-09-2023
Court
District Munsif and Judicial Magistrate Court, Athoor
Judge
1-District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate,Athoor
Decision Date
05th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
FIR Details
FIR Number
839
Police Station
Chinnalapatti P.S.
Year
2020
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Chinnalapatty PS (Police Station)
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
Parthasarathy and 3 others
Ganesan
Veeralakashmi
Santhosh
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate,Athoor
Disposed
Judgement
Arguments
Arguments
Questioning
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 05-05-2026 | Disposed |
| 21-04-2026 | Judgement |
| 15-04-2026 | Arguments |
| 02-04-2026 | Arguments |
| 12-03-2026 | Questioning |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary The District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Court in Athoor acquitted all four accused (Parthasarathi, Ganesan, Veeralakshmi, and Santhosh) of charges under IPC Sections 294(b) (obscene speech in public) and 506(1) (criminal intimidation), finding insufficient evidence to prove the allegations beyond reasonable doubt. The court determined that witness testimonies were inconsistent and failed to establish that the alleged threatening remarks were made in a public vicinity or caused immediate fear to the complainant. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case Summary The District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Court in Athoor acquitted all four accused (Parthasarathi, Ganesan, Veeralakshmi, and Santhosh) of charges under IPC Sections 294(b) (obscene speech in public) and 506(1) (criminal intimidation), finding insufficient evidence to prove the allegations beyond reasonable doubt. The court determined that witness testimonies were inconsistent and failed to establish that the alleged threatening remarks were made in a public vicinity or caused immediate fear to the complainant. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts