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
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
Petitioner(s)
State Represented by Vellichanthai PS (Police Station)
Adv. Public Prosecutor
Respondent(s)
Sahul Varghees
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Judicial Magistrate
Disposed
Questioning
Vakalat / Memo of Appearance
Vakalat / Memo of Appearance
Vakalat / Memo of Appearance
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 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
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
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
Explore other courts