State Represented by Vellichanthai PS vs Sahul Varghees — 328/2025

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 281,125(b). Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 12th March 2026.

CRLMP - Criminal Miscellaneous Petition

CNR: TNKK180055682024

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

19-12-2024

Filing Number

5541/2024

Filing Date

20-12-2024

Registration No

328/2025

Registration Date

30-05-2025

Court

Judicial Magistrate Court, Eraniel

Judge

1-Judicial Magistrate

Decision Date

12th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Acquitted

FIR Details

FIR Number

187

Police Station

VELLICHANTHAI P.S

Year

2024

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 281,125(b)

Petitioner(s)

State Represented by Vellichanthai PS (Police Station)

Adv. Public Prosecutor

Respondent(s)

Sahul Varghees

Hearing History

Judge: 1-Judicial Magistrate

12-03-2026

Disposed

11-03-2026

Questioning

12-02-2026

Vakalat / Memo of Appearance

31-12-2025

Vakalat / Memo of Appearance

10-12-2025

Vakalat / Memo of Appearance

Final Orders / Judgements

12-03-2026
Copy of Judgment

Court Decision Summary The Judicial Magistrate of Eraniel acquitted the accused Shaul Varghese of charges under Indian Penal Code Section 281 (rash or negligent conduct) in a motor vehicle collision case, finding that the prosecution failed to produce sufficient evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted that the sole eyewitness (complainant) later settled the matter and the prosecution presented only one supporting witness, without adequate corroborating evidence; consequently, the accused was also discharged from charges under Section 125(b) following settlement between parties. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Interim Orders

11-03-2026
Evidence
casestatus.in Summary

Court Decision Summary The Judicial Magistrate of Eraniel acquitted the accused Shaul Varghese of charges under Indian Penal Code Section 281 (rash or negligent conduct) in a motor vehicle collision case, finding that the prosecution failed to produce sufficient evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted that the sole eyewitness (complainant) later settled the matter and the prosecution presented only one supporting witness, without adequate corroborating evidence; consequently, the accused was also discharged from charges under Section 125(b) following settlement between parties. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

Judicial Magistrate Court, Eraniel All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case